World Marathon Majors Making Flechman remove a promo tattoo

My question would be what is there about being an IAAF Gold Label race that makes it worth it for the NYM to be one? It obviously doesn't matter to the mass of runners who aren't affected by the IAAF rules anyway.

Presumably there's some point or benefit to being an IAAF Gold Label race. Does it make it easier to recruit elites if it's an IAAF Gold Label race? Will the IAAF not recognize records if it's not a Gold Label Race? Did all of the WMM get together and agree to become Gold Label races so that they all operate under the same rules?

Joe Garland wrote:

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

http://nyrr.org/races/procedures/rules_of_competition.asp

Yes, but if you look at the USATF advertising rules that were linked above, the USATF adverting rules only apply to USATF "Championship Events."

"Athlete attire worn at all USATF Championship Events (“Events”), as defined below, must be in accordance with policies established through the IAAF."

...

"USATF Championship Events:

USA Indoor Track & Field Championships

USA Outdoor Track & Field Championships

USA Championship Divisions of host road races

Millrose Games

Boston Indoor Games

Penn Relays, USA vs. The World

Adidas Grand Prix

Prefontaine Classic

USA Cross Country Championships

All Olympic Trials"

This year, the NYM wasn't a USATF Championship Event (in 2010 it was for women, but not this year), so USATF advertising rules don't apply. The IAAF advertising rules do apply, because it's an IAAF Gold Label race.

I think we need to separate a few things here.

1) Athletes' rights overall.

2) The so-called injustice to Lauren Fleshman in this case.

In general, it doesn't seem right that athletes are basically forced to run some races for free (USATFs) but can't wear logos. Back when we were competing and had no sponsorship really, it angered us a great deal when we were told we couldn't where the LetsRun.com jersey at USAs.

We had to pay a couple hundred to register LetsRun.com as a national running club to get the letsrun.com jersey into USAs.

So on this front, we feel the athletes' pain.

That being said, I also think the athletes are a bit unrealistic.

They seem to think there is a "ton of money out there" that these evil meet promoters are keeping from them. In reality, there isn't a whole lot of money out there - except in the marathons - and it has to be spread very thin.

How many NBA players are there? 12 x 30 = 360. Think about how many pro track and field people there are just in the US alone. A ton. There is something like 20 events per gender. Let's say there are ten per event trying to make it (in reality there are more). That's 400 pro track athletes in the US alone.

If running were treated like the NBA, a lot of the US pros would be in the minor leagues - scraping by just like a minor league baseball player scrapes by often in the US.

An NFL player can't wear logos of tatoos on his jersey and it's not an injustice because they are paid handsomely.

It's an in injustice in track and field when athletes aren't paid well. That certainly wasn't the case here. I'm not an agent, but I'd be stunned if Lauren Fleshman didn't make at least $20,000 for running New York. It wouldn't shock me to learn she made $50,000. An agent would have a better idea than me.

So she was paid a lot to run the race. I'd argue it was probably one of, if not the #1, the most lucrative 2:37s in history. And the fact of the matter is, she wasn't really ever going to be on TV in the race as she ran 2:37:23. Her tatoo wasn't going to get publicity or tv time. It's like in a lawsuit - there has to be damages.

By not allowing her to wear the tattoo, she actually has gained handsomely. The 'outcry' has gained her a lot of publicity.

Savvy marketing by Lauren if you ask me.

I remember when Doug Logan took over USATF. He wanted to have all the athletes do a series and had all these ideas for marketing the sport. The problem is you can't control the athletes unless you pay them. They do control the uniforms, which is unfair when the athletes aren't being paid.

The real strory wrote:

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!!

Correct. The only way this can change is at the IAAF level. Now, what is so bad about expecting that an organization like NYRR would lead the charge in standing up to the IAAF? Do you really believe that IAAF has the balls to drop NYC as a Gold Label Race? That would hurt IAAF more than NYC.

@Ricky: Thanks.

Total Knob wrote:

It's a dumb rule

Dumb rule - the Marathon takes a shedload of money from ING, both as the title sponsor and as a WMM. It uses some of that money to pay for Lauren Fleshman to travel to and stay in New York, probably an appearance fee of some sort as well, and it's dumb of them to want to protect their sponsor's brand?

What Fleshman was trying to do was guerilla marketing, and extremely disrespectful to the sponsors.

A subject that comes up regularly on LinkedIn is "how do we promote our sport?" - well one of the best ways would be for one of the leading professionals in the country to act respectfully to the sponsor.

Do you really believe that the IAAF or USATF is acting to protect the sponsors? It is sad that the knee-jerk reaction of so many posters on LRC is always AGAINST the athletes. The sprinters and throwers support Fleshman, but distance runners (as per usual) are out to criticize their own. Even Fleshman has come out with a tweet about how great NYRR is. Was that ever in doubt? NYRR is great for the sport, but that doesn't mean they can't have some principles and integrity and stand up for the athletes. Don't pretend ING would have been devastated if Fleshman wore a Picky Bars tattoo. A sponsor sponsors a race as a way of getting their brand on tens of thousands of shirts, billboards, etc. If Nike were sponsoring the race they would not ban people from wearing Adidas and vice versa. It's sad that some people on here are so desperate to denigrate their own. Then when Americans don't run well, you will be the first to criticize. Advertising works in other sports that are similar to running. See motor racing or cycling for example. You can even look at running in Japan. NYRR is to this situation as Joe Paterno is to the situation at Penn. They didn't do anything "wrong," but they damn sure could have done a hell of a lot more than they did.

IAAF and USTAF are ALWAYS protecting the sponsors - to suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.

Why should NYRR want to stand up for an athlete who deliberately sets out to ignore its rules and embarass its sponsors?

And what the f*ck does wearing a tattoo have to do with running fast - your logic is, well it isn't even logic.

Get a grip, you are so desperate to be "right" that you aren't even making sense.

Total Knob wrote:

IAAF and USTAF are ALWAYS protecting the sponsors - to suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.

Why should NYRR want to stand up for an athlete who deliberately sets out to ignore its rules and embarass its sponsors?

And what the f*ck does wearing a tattoo have to do with running fast - your logic is, well it isn't even logic.

Get a grip, you are so desperate to be "right" that you aren't even making sense.

You're only showing that you have no exposure to the world of elite running on any level. I'm too busy to argue with you.

You're only showing that you have no exposure to the world of elite running on any level. I'm too busy to argue with you.

Total Knob wrote:

What Fleshman was trying to do was guerilla marketing, and extremely disrespectful to the sponsors.

ING and Asics will live. If she were trying to wear a huge tattoo logo of one of the sponsor's competitors, that would be another matter. But this was the logo of her own fledgling company. I don't see how it could be construed as "disrespectful" at all. Even in a small way. ING and Asics are hardly the victims here, and they certainly don't need people sitting around feeling sorry for them, either. I know I'm not.

Anyone who's seen the famous photo of a victorious Rod Dixon at the finish of the NYC Marathon back in the '80s would have seen that he wore a small Pepsi logo as well as a small Pan Am logo. The world did not spin off its axis.

Lastly, even though the entire incident was a drag, Fleshman clearly stated that it was her own fault, and that she should have paid more attention to the rules. And as others have pointed out, she ended up getting way more publicity than if they'd let her wear the damn thing in the first place. That's how this stuff usually works in the end.

I received an email on this a few days ago. Usually I'm all about athlete rights and the first thing I thought was, "I don't have a lot of sympathy for her."

Now that this has been posted on the Track and Field athletes association blog I might as well comment on it. I think the athletes should pick a much better situation to make a stand with.

Here is the email respone I wrote:

"I generally am in agreement that uniform restrictions are too restrictive. However, the other side of the coin is that the meets want them that way so their own sponsors get more exposure.

But I have a lot more sympathy for that argument at meets where athletes do not have a choice but to compete and are not paid to compete (ie Nationals, etc). The athletes should get together and get looser restrictions. Also I think technically sponsors logos have to be shoe companies which is ludicrous.

However, NYC Marathon is a private event. I'm pretty certain they paid Lauren tens of thousands of dollars to run the race. If she got over $50,000 it wouldn't surprise me from what I heard other people getting (although she didn't run that well so the total amount might be less). I think when she accepts that money she is pretty much saying, "I'll follow your rules." PowerBar I think is a sponsor of the race so it makes sense NY wouldn't want athletes with extra logos promoting Picky Bars.

I just don't have a lot of sympathy that she was taken advantage of when they paid her tens of thousands of dollars. She needs to see the bigger picture. And all the stuff she wants done does not better the sport, it just promotes Picky Bars."

So those were my thoughts in the email and nothing I've read since then has changed. Lauren is one of the more interesting runners on the circuit but to make a stink in a situation where the race pays you tens of thousands to run is not smart in my opinion.

I then was flying back and in the DC airport I saw Lauren Fleshman was on the cover of RunnersWorld magazine. And I noticed there wasn't a single piece of Picky Bar material on her jersey or face. I don't see her complaining about that. I'm sure Nike said, "it's going to be 100% Nike" and she didn't think twice about complaining.

I see now the complaints may be from the

http://trackandfieldathletesassociation.org/

not Lauren which would make more sense as I don't think she wants to come across as ungrateful to NYC.

The restrictions need to be loosened for sure. But it's not like the athletes are going to all of a sudden be making a ton more money. Hopefully, the pie gets bigger but some of the money they may get may come at the expense of sponsors of the races. If you can have a gigantic non-Nike shoe logo on your jersey then Nike will pay less to sponsor the bibs of the Chicago Marathon.

Fair disclosure: The NYRR paid to advertise on letsrun.com last week.

Anyone who's seen the famous photo of a victorious Rod Dixon at the finish of the NYC Marathon back in the '80s would have seen that he wore a small Pepsi logo as well as a small Pan Am logo.

Which is a fantastic snippet of marathon history. Another fantastic snippet of NYC Marathon history is that ING was the first title sponsor of the race - and their sponsorship began in 2003!

So whatever Rod Dixon wore on his vest, it certainly didn't clash with any title sponsor's branding.

I fail to see the difference between Fleshman wearing the logo of her start-up company and the logo of Citibank, or BOA? Why should she get a pass, and where should the sponsors draw the line: would Citibank be out, but perhaps her local Credit Union would be OK?

Do you want to know why it's disrespectful? If Fleshman had gone to ING and asked for permission to wear her logo during the race, they would probably have said yes (as you say, it hardly conflicts with their sales pitch, and there are plenty of other brands on display), instead of which she chose to sneak around and try to pull a fast one. That's disrespectful.

I'm glad the 1%ers have folks like you to feel sorry for them and to reveal the gross injustices being perpetrated by these heinously disrespectful athletes. Where would they be without folks like you?

I'm not saying that Fleshman needs any sympathy either. Like I said, this all worked out well beyond her wildest dreams, I'm sure. But the entire incident is just an illustration of a rule that could stand to be at least loosened. She was looking to get some exposure for her new company, and boy did she get that. But she wasn't paid a dime to wear those tattoos.

ps--I believe the title sponsor back in the day was Manufacturer's Hanover.

Could you circumvent the rules by deliberately mispelling the name of your company?

Kind of like the thread title comes dangerously close to "Felchman" but we still know who it really is about.

Except for the guy that couldn't decipher the quote.

Any why, Mr. Knob, do you think Nike allows people to wear Adidas in events that Nike sponsors?

rojo wrote:

How many NBA players are there? 12 x 30 = 360. Think about how many pro track and field people there are just in the US alone. A ton. There is something like 20 events per gender. Let's say there are ten per event trying to make it (in reality there are more). That's 400 pro track athletes in the US alone.

I agree with you on the particular case of the tattoo, but this comparison is ludicrous. Do you really believe there are 10 male and 10 female pro athletes for every track & field event (count each athlete only once!) in the US alone?

And, to get close to that figure, the majority of athletes you have to include in the "pro" category just make enough to stay above the water, not to nearly enough to save for life after sports.

In reality, I think all professional track & field athletes in the US combined make less in salary and advertisement than the athletes of ONE of the biggest NBA teams.

Which is fair enough - most people working regular jobs don't make any more, and athletes simply earn what the market pays them. However, I think you should have some sympathy if they protest when they believe that the rules hinder their earning potential unnecessarily.

In the future, Lauren should consider changing her first name to "Picky" and as an elite athlete, the name Picky will be on her bib.

My husband wants to know why Meb's singlet could have NYAC on it, but Zap elite athletes couldn't have ZAP on their singlet. (Full disclosure: BRM was the one who came up with the name change thing - he suggested all ZAP athletes legally change their first names to ZAP.)

rojo and wejo posting in the same thread. I'm blown away!

Here's my issue with the whole thing....why the he'll is Fleshman still listed as a Powerbar Elite athlete and marketing her own bars at the same time?

http://www.powerbar.com/athletes/7/Lauren_Fleshman.aspx

Is someone asleep at the wheel at Powerbar? Do you think they still send her product and gear? Why don't they pull her off their website? Makes them looks like they are clueless.