Competitor drops support for elite athletes immediately - runblogrun

The problem is that Competitor took over so many big races in the lead up to this. I mean, look at the Philly Half: they bought out the Philly Distance run, which was a great race with a long history, a few years ago. Now they're cutting elite support. So this race that was one of the fastest in the country, and probably the best in Philadelphia, is going to turn into a hobbyjogfest? That sucks.

Here is the the link to contact Competitor Group through their website.

http://competitorgroup.com/contact/

Maybe if they get enough negative feedback they might rethink this policy at some point. Here is a copy of the message I sent them:

As a serious runner for 20 years my focus is shifting to longer races. In the near future PRs at shorter distances will no longer be possible and my focus will be on marathons and half marathons. I anticipate running seriously for the rest of my life. And in light of Competitor Group's recent decision to no longer provide prize money, appearance fees, and and travel expenses for elite athletes I will never run any event affiliated with your organization. Your short sighted decision will hurt the future of the sport in the United States. And it will cost you thousands of dollars in entry fees that I would have spent at your events in the years and decades to come.

Sincerely,

Yeah I am sure that the city councils will not allow the races to be run. Idiocy

Jeff Wigand wrote:

seeking clarity wrote:

So appearance fees and travel support are gone, but it's not clear if prize money too is gone?

$1000 for first place at basically every race.

not true. That has been dropped. Last April competitor moved to paying only $1000 to sub 1:05, 2:20 athletes. Less to athletes a minute to two slower (down to $250 for a sub 1:07 and 2:25). This was regardless of place. However with this decision, competitor will pay no money regardless of place or time to winning athletes.

I believe the best way to reverse their decision is to make sure that no one ever volunteers for their events. As soon as their sources of volunteers disappear, their business will quickly disintegrate.

Race director wrote:

I believe the best way to reverse their decision is to make sure that no one ever volunteers for their events. As soon as their sources of volunteers disappear, their business will quickly disintegrate.

This is actually pretty doable, since many of the volunteers come from local road running clubs. If you're in a club that provides volunteers to races, talk to them about boycotting competitor.

The article specifically says prize money remains in place:

RunBlogRun has confirmed that elite athletes for the Philly Half Marathon, which is to be held on September 15, will not have their appearance fees honored nor their travel. While prize money will still be in place, no further support of such developing elite athletes will be supported.

I find it slightly ironic that while the BroJos are ranting on the homepage about boycotting Competitor Group I am staring at an ad for the Arizona Rock and Roll half marathon while reading the thread about how bad CGI is.

How about we clean up the site first and remove their ads?

Surprise, some investment bankers take tax dollars, do nothing and pocket the money...

I've always been hesitant to run their events after the ridiculously negative things I've heard about some of their marathons. Now, it is official. I will not be running Competitor events in the future. I will also be strongly encouraging others to boycott their events and will give everyone I know a piece of mind when I hear of them signing up for Competitor events.

Alan Culpepper currently works for Competitor as an event director. I wonder his thoughts on this change.

Reports from employees state that Competitor are not losing money since the new VC's took over but are not achieving the forecasts they projected. The company isnt leaking water but bolstering profit margins to give good early reports. $500,000 with a $225mill company does not add up. They spend more on catering! They should have quietly reduced appearance fees over time but this is the selfish world they live in.

The point is that at 1st opportunity they have neglected the elite end of our sport. Does it effect you or me personally? No, but we should continue to address competitor no different than the electric run or the color run.

The course the company is choosing goes against every press release they have issued and against what people on this site are interested in. If they want to do this then as avid letsrun.com visitor we should not mention them again. Is that a big stand? No, but at least we sleep with principles.

douglas burke wrote:

mike long was a great man.

the people who replaced him, never measured up.

I guess if crook and cheat qualify as great man then I can't argue. Really have to define our prereqs first. Long stole from one of my athletes and then I watched him block entry into a USATF (maybe TAC)Championship Road race of several potential prize money winners so his athletes could have a better shot at the cash. Never went near an ER or Competitor race agin. Been fine without 'em for the last 15 years.

Agree. They have always been squeezing as much out of every entry I decided long ago to avoid them.

Their elite fields were always just token attempts anyways so I doubt very much that they are saving as much as they claim.

When PE funds run stuff, run away. They are just in it for the buck and screw up more companies than they fix, or fix them just enough to get their return on them and then see them crash loaded with debt.

Boycotts are suppose to be hard sacrifices, but this one is so easy.

I personally never see or have any interest on who the top runners are at a Rock and Roll Race. For me it is the race, meeting up and racing with friends and enjoying the total experience. The Rock and Roll series are not successful because of the top runners they bring in, it is because of the huge crowds they draw. If this is a means of saving money and maybe future reduced entry fees, then I'm all for it.

Good, few more dollars for some more bands. Maybe they could hold the first color run marathon.

domoslay wrote:

If this is a means of saving money and maybe future reduced entry fees, then I'm all for it.

Hahaha, reduced entry fees. Good one.

Forgive me if this has been brought up already but I skimmed the first 3 pages and saw nothing...

If an athlete set to run Philly, or any other race in 2013 has a contract signed by their agent and Competitor, and the athlete fulfills his or her side of the contract, that Competitor would be legally obligated to fulfill their side without threat of legal action.

That being said there are usually very few people at the RNR races that are good enough to have this kind of situation most people that were verbally or perhaps written (email) a promise of a hotel room etc. may be out of luck depending, although many could still argue that this also represents a contract.

I guess we will see what happens with the race just a few weeks away. One thing that they perhaps not thought about is the impact from many of their expo vendors - many of which are shoe companies who want/need their sponsored athletes to have exposure at these semi-major events. If the vendors pull out of the 20-30 expos/year it will represent $100K plus in lost revenue and well over $2M if a certain sponsor pulls out.

Slightly Ironic wrote:

I find it slightly ironic that while the BroJos are ranting on the homepage about boycotting Competitor Group I am staring at an ad for the Arizona Rock and Roll half marathon while reading the thread about how bad CGI is.

How about we clean up the site first and remove their ads?

Confused by this.

We are supposed to boycott the series (might be a good idea), yet LETSRUN IS APPARENTLY TAKING MONEY FROM ADVERTISING THE SAME SERIES?

Obviously this requires an explanation.