Lawrence Cherono beat less than 70 men to win the Boston Marathon, Steven VanGampleare beat more than 7k to win the open race

Hardloper wrote:

+1 wrote:

+1

Take your PC carp else where.

The actual facts of the issue don't matter. We need broader opinions from the men's elite perspective, and the women's elite perspective, and the women's sub-elite perspective, and the LGBTQ+ perspective, and the undocumented migrant caravan perspective, and the hobbyjoggers of every color and religion's perspective. It's 2019 and you can't write an article about a PRIVILEGED WHITE MALE without providing equitable more diverse and inclusive viewpoints from all underrepresented demographics

The issue had everything to do with elite male athletes now going off 2 minutes before the masses. It had nothing to do with sex or gender or white male privilege or demographics. I fail to see how every conversation needs to end up having to be one about social justice and causes

Tiresome wrote:

The issue had everything to do with elite male athletes now going off 2 minutes before the masses. It had nothing to do with sex or gender or white male privilege or demographics. I fail to see how every conversation needs to end up having to be one about social justice and causes

Correct. That post was sarcasm.

To those of you using "activism" as a dirty word, here's a post in this thread from one of the site's founders:

wejo wrote:

also not an expert, but... wrote:

I'm guessing the Brojos wrote this article hoping to influence the BAA to reverse their decision and eliminate the 2 minute gap next year. I support that reasoning. This separate start is not the biggest issue in the world, but if they want to highlight it with one interesting interview, then go for it.

Good assessment.

He says what their doing with this article is "hoping to influence the BAA to reverse their decision," ie, activism. It's worth asking yourselves why you laud activism in favor of one group and disparage decisions (or, fine, activism) made in favor of another.

To those of you who keep repeatedly ignoring the positives that clearly do come with this decision that benefit not just women but also pro/elite men and the BAA itself (no Yoreks, clean sport), I also think you should consider asking yourself while you're willfully ignoring (or at least, not responding) that. (I also haven't heard anyone dispute that, in an environment when sponsorship dollars and media exposure are limited, giving sub-elite women and sub-elite men on the same opportunities to break through and earn a chance to make a living at this sport; but I also haven't heard anyone acknowledge it, either.)

And rojo, I haven't called you or anyone sexist. (I'm the only person on this thread who has been called a sexist--by you.) But we all--you, me, male sub-elites, female sub-elites, the BAA, non-runners, and Mother flippin' Theresa--have biases that are worth examining. And it's exceptionally important that especially people in positions of influence do, because that's how we act in ways that make the sport we love better--for everyone, not just people we're predisposed to considering.

I can't pronounce whatever his name is so I'm gonna just call him Steven Vampire

Bad Wigins wrote:

I can't pronounce whatever his name is so I'm gonna just call him Steven Vampire

I wonder if that what the ladies call him ;)

Not An Expert wrote:

I strongly disagree that “the separate men’s elite start was done not with any positive intention to promote men’s running.” Derek Yoreks are bad for the sport, and this change eliminated that possibility. Races having the ability to vet their elite fields is also good for clean sport (doubly so at Abbott World Marathon Majors where they invest extensively in OOC testing). These were positives for male pros. Did they come with a negative for a few dozen male sub-elite runners? Yes. But to say there were no positive outcomes for men’s running as a whole, full stop, doesn't ring true.

I think LR should have also highlighted the women's open winner, but I disagree with these points. There's nothing wrong at all with Yoreks in an open race. It the beginning of the race, who cares? This happens with kids/people in local races all the time, and it never bothered me one bit. This doesn't stop races from vetting their elite fields at all either. If you think they should vet more people if they had started together, that's a different issue entirely.

Incomplete grades wrote:

Incomplete Grades wrote:

Hey Rojo,

Why when grading the Americans did you grade the people's champ but not 20th place who,ran 2 minutes faster? You skipped him and went to Abdi and Tim Ritchie. You even included a DNF from Brian Shrader who had a slower entry time.

20th isn't great but you worked around him.

Must of not fit the agenda?

Still waiting for a response from anyone that has something to do with this site.

Brendan Gregg is an American and finished 20th. He was not part of the John Hancock program but beat 10 of them.

Jon initially rated all of the Hancock pros. Since he missed some people that ran faster, I went back in and tried to add in all of the Americans like Becky Wade. I must have missed greg. My apologies.

As for Gregg, I guess I'll give him an B. He's a 2:18:30 guy that ran 2:16:46. A PR is good but he reminds me of my brother. A low 28-minute guy would hopefully be running sub-2:12, certainly sub-2:15 in the marathon. I'll add him in.

Again, the reason why we didn't have Gregg in and didn't have an article on the women's champ is we only have so much time. When some Americans were missing, I specifically added them in as it seemed weird to skip over some. Friends and family want to see the rankings although the casual fan doesn't notice.

PS. Can I ask what agenda you think we had to not include Gregg but include Tim Ritchie? It amazes me that in the year 2019 people think everything has to have an agenda. How about a simple mistake?

Like I'm reading the thread about the crazy dude who wears thongs walking his dog through Howard University. It can't just be "Crazy idiot" complains about Howard. Intead it's an example of white privilege. No, it's just a crazy dude.

Did someone forget how to count? Cherono beat the 70 plus 7k people. So it is Cherono actually beat 70k + 70.

Translation: We are lazy AND unprofessional.

Not An Expert wrote:

To those of you who keep repeatedly ignoring the positives that clearly do come with this decision that benefit not just women but also pro/elite men and the BAA itself

Nobody is "ignoring" it. There are literally no such positives, much less "clear" positives.

The male elites don't benefit (they wouldn't have to share the spotlight regardless). Maybe it reduces the chances that some (very fast) joker tries to lead the race for a couple of miles, but even though people agree that's in bad taste, it's not really a problem. Those guys are rare, they disappear quickly, and it gives the announcers the chance to point out that even a really, really fast amateur can only keep up for about one downhill mile. If they were seriously concerned about that, they could pretty easily institute a rule prohibiting those kinds of antics (a lot of ways you could write it).

The male subelites obviously don't benefit (they have to deal with weird clocks and they're less likely to have people to run with or chase).

The female elites don't benefit. Just like the men, they're in their own race, free and clear of sub elites and the masses alike.

The female subelites don't benefit. They are still ineligible for prize money. The only difference is that their male counterparts are too. I suppose they could feel some psychological gratification if they feel that an injustice has been remedied. But the women I know at that level don't think that there was any discrimination going on, and they resent non-running journalists using a sport they love as just the latest tool to stoke outrage. The only reason they were treated differently was because it was necessary in order to give the elite women the spotlight that the elite men get naturally (by virtue of running clear of the crowd). Keep in mind that the exact same prize money is being allocated among men and women; it's just that before the allocation rules were slightly different, as a necessary result of a decision that has had a hugely beneficial effect on women's pro running in all major races.

The problem here is mostly that rojo (and really even Gault these days) can't argue or debate his (their) way out of a wet paper bag. Even when trying to argue a rational position we can all get behind, the staff here at LRC manages to always retch forth the least convincing argument possible, whether logically or semantically, and thus they continually imperil themselves to various forms of ambiguity and, of course, ridicule (especially in the case of rojo).

But maybe I should put the breaks on any judgment.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Creighton coach. wrote:

Honestly. He sounds like an entitled jerk.

Enjoy your 15 mins dude. No one will know who you are next year.

This. Mediocre in college (article says 39th or so as his best), now posts a solid (but not elite) time with Vaporfly's and thinks he is the big deal.

Also he is lucky that he works in Colorado Springs, one of the best training locations in the US. Super high mileage guy (all his runs are on Strava for the past 6 years or so), so he is probably pretty close to his genetic limits by now, I doubt he will even break 2:14.

Funny thing with the crying about starting two minutes after the elites is that it may have helped him by not getting sucked into going out over his head.