Tony Reavis' Race Directors address

Mzungu,

I understand what you're saying appreciate your position, particularly given your personal background on the matter.

However, if you open the elite awards up to the masses, what's to stop Leghzaoui from registering online and then turning your event from a race to discussion about drugs? Furthermore, is the 1500m at a major grand prix less exciting because all the entrants are decided uponin advance by the meet director?

Mzungu,

There is no way to promote the sport as you would have it. Not knowing who shows up till the starting horn removes any chance to advance the event in the media or sell it to sponsors. There need to be well understood criteria for what constitutes "elite" and "eligible elite".

What I am advocating is not individual elite athlete coordinators, which has been part of our current problem - fragmentation. Rather build a tour-wide series of linked events that have a well-regulated system (See PGA Tour or ATP Tennis). Then, if someone from the people's race runs beautifully we have in place a remunerative system to handle and reward that performance.

The other way to do it would be like Pro Poker where anyone who wants to compete in the pro race pays a fee to enter. And I'm not talking about $110, but something well beyond that. You know, that's how professional horse racing works, too. You have to pay to enter your horse. Now, I don't think our sport is presently advanced enough to create such a system, but that would put athletes on an even field, and all the event would require is entry in a timely enough frame to do some media background on the entrants.

If you run a wind aided time of course you don't get a prize. But if you run faster than the winner of the fast heat you shouldn't go home empty handed.

In a way we're comparing oranges and apples, though I've never really understood why you can't compare them. In big track meets you don't have separate heats in the 100. You have qualifying heats and a final so the problem goes away.

Road racing has never been like that. One of the BIG selling points for road racing has always been that it's the ONE sport where the "average" athlete can compete with the best in the world.

Ok, I always thought that was a little overstated. You were lined up at Boston behind 7,647 others and at the front of that mob is Toshihiko Seko, Steve Jones and others of that ilk. Are you really competing with them?

Technically you were. If you somehow managed to work your way through that mob and moved ahead of Seko and Jones you'd get credit for beating them.

When you start having separate races you lose that business about the average runner getting to compete with the best. I don't know how much that matters to today's "average" runner, but change that and you're fundamentally changing the sport. Maybe the change makes it better, maybe it makes it worse.

But then you get back to "controlling" the field which largely seems to be a euphenism for holding down the number of annonymous Kenyans or Ethiopians in a given race. Well, a lot of races don't have elite races, so you couldn't really keep a horde of anonymous Kenyans or Ethiopians from entering if they pay their entry fees.

As I see it, the problem. if there is one, is just as much the absence of Americans as the presence of anonymous Africans. But is it really a problem? If you're thinking about media coverage, yes, it may be. But as someone else pointed out, if I'm a race director looking to get the maximum number of entries in my event it doesn't seem to matter.

Anyway, if you think that having an American presence would help a road race's attractiveness, just put some money in your budget and pay them to come.

...if I'm a race director looking to get the maximum number of entries in my event it doesn't seem to matter.

But what if you were the body whose job it was to generate interest in the sport? Then it would matter.

I would like to see an outside organization bring the Tour to already established events. Remove the financial, media, and logistical responsibility of bringing in elite athletes from the individual events, who have only the local marketplace from which to generate the funds to fill those elements. One reason our prize purses have remained so low for 30 years in inflation-adjusted terms.

But if a national tour operator brought the athletes, sponsors, and media to the events, then the local promoter could spend more of his/her funds and forces on making the experience better for the average participant. Win-win.

HRE,

If you're talking about combined results, wind aided marks count. Look at the Notturna Meet in Milan 2002. Jonathan Edwards won with a wind aided 17.43w, while his best legal mark was 16.89, and Friedick was 3rd behind Edwards and Oprea, even though he had the best wind-legal mark of the day.

And if I'm the race director, I don't have to have qualifying heats if I don't want to. I have limited amount of air time and want to put on an entertaining program: why should I stage endless heats for B and C sprinters when people paid money to see Bolt, Powell or Gay?

Is "the average runner competing against the best" really what sells Boston? Really? Like some random guy from Concord, NH is going to start throwing down 4:50 miles and hold it all the way to Boylston St? Really? Toni is absolutely right in the need to know and market the competitors, both before and during the event. It helps the views become familiar with who and what their watching.

Does Ian Stewart do an injustice to the sport by not inviting Sanya Richards to the 400m in London? Or, is helping athletics in Britain because it's better to have an Ohuruogu vs. Sanders race as a means to excite the public over two Britons battling before 15,000 UK fans?

It's more about simply paying Americans to come. It's about making it a race that viewers who don't necessarily understand times can appreciate.

Steve Jones, Greg Meyer, and Mark Plaatjes reflected on the very same topics with very similar views to Reavis just a year or so ago.

http://www.hillrunner.com/forums/index.php?topic=3169.0

(with apologies and regards to the great Paul Christman, unfortunately runningstats.com and all of its wonderful content from his hand are now gone -- perhaps someone could try to archive that content on a server somewhere?)

Part of the difficulty seems we have to cater for both the anti-obesity and king-of-the-hill agendas.

some ideas, just writing out loud:

1) some experimental open races without appearance fees, super rigorous anti-doping, hefty prizes for a big podium (top 50?) and a cash partial rebate if you beat your pr for the masses?

2) bring bio-telemetry in the fast field: individual hr, step frequency, speed, heck lactate why not (fully aware of difficulties but if we metaphorized runners into cars, we might have a fighting chance)...pov cameras, not just 1, many...Technology is on our side.

3) Like horses, courses that are totally visible to spectators present...more track field approach

4) The Team, not just the individual runner, but lets give the Teams their dues. Should PTs, coaches, masseurs, osteopaths, ect be more visible/

5) Health only races, Tourist only races: where nobody really cares who's on first

6)(corollary of 3) Races where the fast ones start last and run in a middle lane. Everybodyelse on both sides. That way at least you get to watch your heroes blaze past you...

Just writing out loud. Easy now...

More interesting ideas. Here's a few more thoughts from my end.

To Toni, I would say there's a difference between not knowing anyone who's coming and not knowing everyone who's coming. Under the system I propose, you could certainly know MOST of the competitors ahead of time, and 9 times out of 10, these will be your winners, but there still needs to be a way for Joe Runner (or maybe Joe Kiprunner) to show up, and if his ability allows, to compete for the purse on offer. You promote the heck out of the guys you know are coming, and if an unknown beats them, then you milk that for all it's worth too - and you reimburse their entry, travel and housing costs.

And whether it's the big races or the little ones, race directors could do better in terms of their expectations for the elites. There are groups of foreign athletes (and some not so foreign guys too) who show up late, expect special treatment - and get it. Other times, they contact race directors well in advance, get commitments regarding entries, housing, travel, etc; and then no-show on race day without any communication to the race. Race directors should know that these guys are going to come to your race either way - don't feel like you've got to cater to them to get them there.

Case in point, this year's Cooper River 10k had gotten a "commitment" from a Kenyan lady who was running really well. Problem is, the same lady was also entered for Carlsbad on the same weekend. The Charleston paper ran a great article on how this lady was the race favorite; the race budgeted hotel space for her; and didn't know until the morning before the race that she wasn't coming. Should this race deal favorably with her manager next year? I would think not.

In the case of my wife's running, we've got some ground rules that we try to work with - for starters, no asking for comp entry within 24 hours of the race (I usually try to ask no closer than a week out unless I know the race has a history of providing entries, housing, etc.). If race offers something, we'll generally take it, but asking at the last minute just doesn't seem right.

If our travel schedule permits, ALWAYS offer to be a part of any pre or post race events. In some cases this has meant her serving as a translator for athletes who beat her for interviews.

If she ever DNF's or has a really sub-par race, we offer to repay any expenses the race has covered (this only happened once - she DNF'd after passing out. The race not only refused repayment, but invited her back the next year).

Anyway, lots of rambling there - and a little more here.

I followed that link to the runnerhill site and found the following statements about foreign runners - statements that are loaded with erroneous information - I'll take a minute to address a couple of the errors:

“This process would verify the athlete’s ability to be eligible to earn money in the USA by having the appropriate P1 Visa and not a B1/B2 Visitor’s Visa, which specifically precludes earning money per INS/IRS regulations."

The above statement, attributed on the thread to Glenn Latimer, is totally wrong. A person in the US on a B1/B2 visa is allowed to receive prize money and to have travel expenses paid but may not receive appearance fees or sponsor fees for running in the US. The law on this specifically states that earning prize money is acceptable, and race directors who try not to pay prize money to persons on tourist visas could find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Many of the Kenyan athletes are here on these B1/B2 visas - visas the US Embassy in Nairobi granted knowing full well that these guys were coming to race for money.

More interesting ideas. Here's a few more thoughts from my end.

To Toni, I would say there's a difference between not knowing anyone who's coming and not knowing everyone who's coming. Under the system I propose, you could certainly know MOST of the competitors ahead of time, and 9 times out of 10, these will be your winners, but there still needs to be a way for Joe Runner (or maybe Joe Kiprunner) to show up, and if his ability allows, to compete for the purse on offer. You promote the heck out of the guys you know are coming, and if an unknown beats them, then you milk that for all it's worth too - and you reimburse their entry, travel and housing costs. And if you're going to have separate elite fields, then have clear cut entry standards that anyone can meet on a certified course to get into the elite race - maybe whatever time got the last prize money the year before. Meeting this standard shouldn't guarantee travel/lodging assistance - especially at the last minute - but it would make it easier to determine who's elite and who's not.

And whether it's the big races or the little ones, race directors could do better in terms of their expectations for the elites. There are groups of foreign athletes (and some not so foreign guys too) who show up late, expect special treatment - and get it. Other times, they contact race directors well in advance, get commitments regarding entries, housing, travel, etc; and then no-show on race day without any communication to the race. Race directors should know that these guys are going to come to your race either way - don't feel like you've got to cater to them to get them there.

Case in point, this year's Cooper River 10k had gotten a "commitment" from a Kenyan lady who was running really well. Problem is, the same lady was also entered for Carlsbad on the same weekend. The Charleston paper ran a great article on how this lady was the race favorite; the race budgeted hotel space for her; and didn't know until the morning before the race that she wasn't coming. Should this race deal favorably with her manager next year? I would think not.

In the case of my wife's running, we've got some ground rules that we try to work with - for starters, no asking for comp entry within 24 hours of the race (I usually try to ask no closer than a week out unless I know the race has a history of providing entries, housing, etc.). If race offers something, we'll generally take it, but asking at the last minute just doesn't seem right.

If our travel schedule permits, ALWAYS offer to be a part of any pre or post race events. In some cases this has meant her serving as a translator for athletes who beat her for interviews.

If she ever DNF's or has a really sub-par race, we offer to repay any expenses the race has covered (this only happened once - she DNF'd after passing out. The race not only refused repayment, but invited her back the next year).

Anyway, lots of rambling there.

Not sure why the double post there - sorry for the redundancy!

Guys,

Rules, regulations, eligibility, and obligations across the board for every component element involved: events, athletes, agents, managers, media, sponsors, cities, etc.

We must construct a meaningful architecture for our sport to exist in. Everything else is how we arrange furniture within the new building. But we must create a form that comports with how professional mainstream sports are conducted on a national scale. Right now we are still existing in a totally unregulated marketplace while the governance of our sport remains locked in the time capsule that is the 1978 Amateur Sports Act.

We can debate and compromise on the details, but first we must agree on the blueprints.

Is there any other sport that has even half as many events offering prize money to "open" fields? If so, what's their approach.

Structuring running like Pro Poker is a disaster waiting to happen. There are hardly any poker tournament sponsorships, the prize pools are less than the size of the buy-ins, there is barely any scoring to see how well people do across tourneys (sure some site will let you know how much people have won, but you have no idea what their entries fees were), and the whole system is set up so that there is no publicity. If this is what we're striving for, why are we even bothering? This is the system you get when top poker pros would prefer to live in obscurity and play against fish rather than be stars and play only against other sharks.

The PGA tour is different, in that with the exception of a few spots (sponsor's exemptions and Monday qualifiers), you need a tour card to play in the events. Then again, the PGA doesn't try to hold an amateur tournament the same time that the pros play. Could the idea of a tour card work in running? Maybe. But you have to realize that the vast majority of the money for prize pools comes from rich executives paying five figures each to play a round of golf with the pros the Wednesday before the event (and if there is rain on Wednesday, you don't get a refund). I doubt you'll ever get people to pay that type of cash to do a training run with Ryan Hall or the like. And the other big thing the PGA Tour does is that they prevent you from playing in non-tour events, and there are ZERO appearance fees of any sort. That way, you are forced to make a living by how good you perform in their tournaments. With running, there are too too many road races, so even if there was series of some sort, a runner can easily say screw it, I won't run in this series. Golfers don't have that luxury.

There are too many races of too many distances, too many interest groups, too many runners (both fast and slow) for there to be any real changes. And I'm still confused as to why the current system needs to be changed? The only people who are hurt right now are the second tier pros and the sub-elites (which I fall into). The race directors, charities, top runners and mid to back of the packers all do well. I'm not sure you can ask for anything more. All of this talk is a poorly thought out pipe dream.

everyone can run. i think it's impossible to lock the market on such a basic human skill as an individual running. was bob guccione, hugh hefner, and larry flynt able to lock the market for masturbating to pictures ? running is that basic a human function. i don't see how old timers like reavis (whom i have met, and i think is a nice guy) can possibly think what he is thinking.

almost everyone wrote:

everyone can run. i think it's impossible to lock the market on such a basic human skill as an individual running. was bob guccione, hugh hefner, and larry flynt able to lock the market for masturbating to pictures ? running is that basic a human function. i don't see how old timers like reavis (whom i have met, and i think is a nice guy) can possibly think what he is thinking.

Does it make sense to let anyone into a grand prix? It's important to setup fields that are attractive to the fans and media (and thus the sponsors).

People participating in events for their own health benefits are a wonderful aspect of our sport, and they are, should be, encouraged to do so. However, they are not interesting to watch run.

However, people who are talented and trained to run fast, and do so against other such talented people are compelling, especially if they are competing for high stakes. Those are the people that have the ability to inspire young people if we promote their competitions in a regulated way so the kids can follow this sport like they follow others. I guess I don't get why that's considered such an impossible goal, or a non-compelling one considering the state of childrens health in this country.

All ideas sound good, but can you make it work financially. The cost of marathons are tremendous. The penguins and charities pay the bill, the leftovers go to the elites, charitable causes, paramedics and city police. Every other function is a volunteer function. You can try it. Fred Arnold put his money where is mouth is, and forked up $1,000,000 for a new indoor arena track and Fresno State in his effort to bring back the old west coast arena track meets. That's all I can say.

I like the idea of a national series where their is a common field that can be promoted. I think it would be ideal for a committee of some sort to decide which 30 -40 or however many athletes are decided upon for the series. These athletes would compete for a series "jackpot" as well as prize money from the individual events.

The "common Joe" should however be able to compete for the individual event money as well. They are lining up, and running the same course as a part of the same race are they not?

We COULD construct a meaningful architecture for our sport. Or we could just reckon that we have a structure, there are loads of places where people can race and let nature take its course.

Your assumption here is that we need to generate more money for elites and get more media exposure. That would likely mean changing the sport to increase TV exposure. I'm not sure that's a good thing. The fifth game of the last World Series should never have started. Once it did it should have stopped within a couple of innings. The only reason imagineable that it didn't was because Fox had a TV audience that they wanted to satisfy.

One thing that I've thought made road racing a great sport is that it's always been one where anyone could enter any event and take away whatever prize was offered if they ran fast enough. Controlling fields is going to change that and I don't think that's a good thing.