World Marathon Majors Making Flechman remove a promo tattoo

What exactly is this rule? Clearly runners can wear singlets with their shoe companies on them so some advertising (or perhaps the right kind of advertising) is permitted. Is it specific to tattoos?

Whatever the rule actually is it seems to protect the race sponsors (who pay the race) who get plenty of advertising and less competition for ad space from the athletes who are limited in the advertising they can do. Maybe marathon running is in a position where we need to protect the big sponsors because it's not as popular as Nascar. This kind of issue could encourage runners to unionize.

Assuming it's the IAAF advertising rules that are being applied at the NYM, these are the IAAF rules on advertising-

http://www.iaaf.org/mm//Document/AboutIAAF/Publications/04/87/91/20101229101230_httppostedfile_IAAFAdvertisingRegulationsinforcefrom1January2011-Clean-28.12.2010_23143.pdf

Very picky and detailed.

Fleshman appears to have run afoul of these rules-

3.1.1.1 Any Advertising on or by or otherwise associated with an Athlete is only permitted as expressly permitted on the Athletes’ clothing under these Regulations.

3.1.1.2 Any other Advertising on or by or otherwise associated with an Athlete is prohibited, including but not limited to body painting, tattoos, jewellery, hair dying, hair shaving, the use of any flags, banners, T-shirts, hats and any other form of display of Advertising.

Everyone seems to be missing some key facts in this discussion:

1. LF didn't actually run fast enough to ever show up in the TV coverage, nor have I seen any significant photos of her during the race. So even if she had had been completely covered in pickybar tattoos the only people that would have noticed would have been the live fans who likely wouldn't have been able to make out what the tattoos were advertising. So the net advertising impact for her. Tattoos or no, is pretty much zero.

2. The fact that she's doing pickybars on the side is a nice human interest bit that would have got noted by the media coverage regardless. But mixing in a "got screwed over by the man" subtext to the story is almost certainly bringing much more attention to pickybars than there would have been otherwise. Far more than if the tats had been left on.

She's a clever Stanford grad so I'm sure none of this is a coincidence.

(no, I don't actually believe any of it was premeditated...)

Does this mean running groups can't include the name of their group on their singlet, i.e. OTC's runners can't have OTC on their singlet? Or are they special because they're NIKE-sponsored?

Mrs. M wrote:

Does this mean running groups can't include the name of their group on their singlet, i.e. OTC's runners can't have OTC on their singlet? Or are they special because they're NIKE-sponsored?

Rule 4.1.2.7.

Both of these guys should get lifetime bans- one is advertising Coca Cola and well the other...

http://www.letsrun.com/photos/wejoracingsawe.jpg

Jeffster!!! wrote:

Both of these guys should get lifetime bans- one is advertising Coca Cola and well the other...

http://www.letsrun.com/photos/wejoracingsawe.jpg

"In force as from 1st January 2011"

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Jeffster!!! wrote:

Both of these guys should get lifetime bans- one is advertising Coca Cola and well the other...

http://www.letsrun.com/photos/wejoracingsawe.jpg

"In force as from 1st January 2011"

Picky Picky :)

M M M wrote:

I'm saying her quote is borderline incoherent. What is "It took about 20 minutes and because of it I only had 8 minutes" even supposed to mean?

Seriously? The tattoo removals took about 20 minutes, and she only had 8 minutes to do something, and I'm assuming the quote is out of context.

The incompetent bureaucrats strike again!

Completely wrong.

And now the Real Story:

Lauren is a very nice person, and she is very intelligent.

But she knew exactly what she was trying to do with the tattoo ruse. Her husband Jesse is a triathlete, but what is okay in triathlon per their rules, is not okay in the running world and its rules.

Lauren and Jesse sat in the ING New York City Marathon Technical Meeting on Saturday afternoon where both Mary Wittenberg and David Monti stressed that the athletes had received in writing all the information regarding IAAF Regulations about advertizing and that these regulations would be enforced, up to and including disqualification.

Uniforms were inspected. There was total compliance with the regulations. But Lauren thought she was "being clever" in trying to by-pass the IAAF Regulations. She was wrong.

Maybe she should look at her Nike contract, which also forbids the type of advertizing she tried to sneak in.

My guess is that Nestle has an exclusive agreement NYRRC or the Marathon Majors organization to promote PowerBars.

"The USATF Athlete uniform policy (hereinafter “Guidelines”) allows club names and a manufacturer's name/logo to be displayed on an Athlete's competition and warm-up attire. The size of all logos must comply with the below Guidelines.

The competition and warm-up attire of Athletes may only have advertising and/or identification as permitted under these Guidelines. Any advertising or other identification on such attire not specifically permitted under these Guidelines is strictly prohibited and will constitute a breach of these Guidelines. Any other advertising on or by or otherwise associated with an Athlete is prohibited, including but not limited to, body painting, tattoos, jewelry, hair dying, hair shaving, the use of any flags, banners, T-shirts, hats, and any other form of display of advertising."

The USATF guidelines look like they're the same as the IAAF, but I don't think USATF rules applied to the NYM this year because it wasn't a USATF championship event. Last year it was the US marathon championship for women, but there wasn't a US marathon championship this year.

I think it must be that the IAAF rules apply to elites at the NYM even if it's not a USATF event because NYM is an IAAF Gold Label Road Race-

http://www.iaaf.org/LRR11/index.html

Jeffster!!! wrote:

Both of these guys should get lifetime bans- one is advertising Coca Cola and well the other...

http://www.letsrun.com/photos/wejoracingsawe.jpg

Was that an IAAF sanctioned race?

Here are the actual IAAF rules on being an IAAF Gold Label race-

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/06/04/26/60426_PDF_English.pdf

Rule 4.2.10 makes the IAAF advertising rules apply to the athletes.

So because the NYM is an IAAF Gold Label race, the elites have to follow the IAAF advertising rules.

Thank you.

100% correct - and my previous post describes exactly what the athletes were told at the Technical Meeting.

Nick Symmonds and Adam Nelson and others miss the point completely. The only way this can change is at the IAAF level. Good luck with that challenge!!

Me Too!!! wrote:

M M M wrote:

Just to be clear, the point of this post was to let everyone know you graduated from U Chicago, correct?

Yeah, I love how he threw Chicago in there like it belonged...

"Oh, sorry that you are not as smart as us Harvard, MIT and East Carolina grads."

Looks like Chicago belongs.

Ricky Rico wrote:

The USATF guidelines look like they're the same as the IAAF, but I don't think USATF rules applied to the NYM this year because it wasn't a USATF championship event. Last year it was the US marathon championship for women, but there wasn't a US marathon championship this year.

I think it must be that the IAAF rules apply to elites at the NYM even if it's not a USATF event because NYM is an IAAF Gold Label Road Race-

http://www.iaaf.org/LRR11/index.html

"New York Road Runners races are organized and directed under USA Track & Field rules and regulations."