15 runners DQed for wearing headphones!

I prefer to run with headphones and will race with them in most road races because I feel it give me an advantage, which for me is not having to hear myself breath, in addition to a few other minor plusses. However, I have raced successfully without them and am not broken up about not being able to race without them.

Perhaps this is contradictory, and I would certainly make the argument if I were my own devil's advocate, but while it stands to reason to prohibit them in cross country (although, since I'm good friends with the local USATF guy in my association, I have run in them in cross country races, too) and track races, I think in road races, for the most part, it makes sense to allow them. We are talking about mid to back of the pack runners who really are not competing; and the few of us that are relatively competitive and up toward the front, what is the harm besides to the egos of the "real" runners running behind or beside me in my headphones.

However, what really annoys me about the issue is that while we have the governing body, USATF (who cares about the RRCA, really) telling us we can't wear them, and then we have USATF's effective parent company, Nike, marketing the hell out of IPod this, IPod that, run with your power song, and all that crap, completely catering to all those recreational runners, training them for that local 5k or 10k and then, low and behold, they go out to another local race in their community that has chose to enforce the USATF rules, and they get DQed or told, nope, can't wear them. (Sorry about the run on sentence) Ultimately, I just deal and either run without worrying about being DQed or I find another race if I care about my time being recorded. The duplicity just bothers me.

edvird wrote:

However, what really annoys me about the issue is that while we have the governing body, USATF (who cares about the RRCA, really) telling us we can't wear them,

it's belonging to the RRCA that allows most races to afford insurance. the insurance companies put the rules in place because they are afraid of having to pay out. the no dogs and strollers rule has been in existence for many years. the RRCA didn't say 'no headphones' until USATF did.

which gets back to my question of why are people now being DQ'd for wearing headphones but i can't ever remember a thread about people being DQd for pushing a stroller.

Mike Montagna said:

"Don't forget every runner that we push away might go back to being seditary plus the fact we are elimating the charity runner who helps race money for charities."

I say good. Effin charity runs are the bane of the sport. Let them go bowling or skeet shooting or cake walking or whatever the hell they were doing before they started raping our sport for the benefit of everything under the sun except running.

They can take my headphones away when they pry them out of my cold, dead skull that was crushed by a truck I didn't hear.

I nominate this for GOAT quote.

I would much rather jam to Maroon 5 then listen to the average letsrun poster at a race lying about their weekly mileage and PRs , talking about how great running used to be and how much they hate slower people.

And yes, I have a 44:12 10k PR so I am no slow.

edvird wrote:

We are talking about mid to back of the pack runners who really are not competing; and the few of us that are relatively competitive and up toward the front, what is the harm besides to the egos of the "real" runners running behind or beside me in my headphones.

Right, because increasing the insurance liability of road races, at a time when road closure fees and other costs go up and up, is a super way price many races, especially the smaller local ones, right out of existence. I'd rather have a small % of those back of the pack runners eliminated from participating than see the sport killed off by escalating costs to accommodate those who aren't even really a part of the race or the sport, anyway.

wait, women can get on Letsrun?!?! Isn't there a law against that?

Consequences Consequences wrote:

[quote]edvird wrote:

Right, because increasing the insurance liability of road races, at a time when road closure fees and other costs go up and up, is a super way price many races, especially the smaller local ones, right out of existence. I'd rather have a small % of those back of the pack runners eliminated from participating than see the sport killed off by escalating costs to accommodate those who aren't even really a part of the race or the sport, anyway.

Without the mid and back packers most road races, and marathons would not be in existence. Cant have it both ways.

And BTW who are bigger elitists, runners or triathletes?

Bilbo wrote:

You're more likely to get crushed by me. I run over any earphone-wearing-techno-athlete-wannabe that doesn't hear me coming and get out of the way.

So they are faster than you and you have to catch up to them. Interesting.

What are the numbers of runners injured during races who were wearing i-pods? Do any numbers even exist?

Mike Montagna wrote:

I know many race directors would rather not (I will not say not) enforce rules.

Basically you seemed to answer my question that its not becasue you see it as a problem but rather they are being told they have to.

Quite the contrary. A lot of RDs, myself included, were fed up w/ runners wearing headphones causing various problems in our events, and asked USATF to institute a rule so we could point to it as our reason for banning headphones.

Even if the rule is rescinded (which it looks like it may be, since a bunch of whiners got the ear of the powers that be on the LDR committee) I for one will still ban headphones in my events. And if those people want to boycott them, all the better - I'd rather direct races where I don't have to deal with people not hearing instructions, weaving i front of other runners, etc. etc.

That would be ridiculous of course. How would you pin a bib to a dog's fur? But what if the baby in the jogging stroller was wearing the bib instead of the runner?[/quote]

Well, participation has been declining so I can use all the entrants I can get.

If all entry fees were paid the baby and the dog could take part. But leave the eye-pods off the child, the animal, and the master/parent.

edvird wrote:

. . . we have USATF's effective parent company, Nike, marketing the hell out of IPod this, IPod that, run with your power song, and all that crap, completely catering to all those recreational runners,. . .

Note that Nike has come out with a SportBand that uses Nike+ technology without forcing you to wear headphones/iPod - they realized that a great many runners don't want to do that.

steelframe wrote:

which gets back to my question of why are people now being DQ'd for wearing headphones but i can't ever remember a thread about people being DQd for pushing a stroller.

Part of it is sheer numbers. If as many people ran w/ dogs or strollers as there are headphone runners, they'd be getting DQ'd left and right.

Granted, it is selective enforcement by RDs, but they probably feel 1 or 2 strollers or dogs aren't a big hazard, but 100+ headphone wearers are.

maybe music and ipods are performance enhancing...

I saw an Ipod wearer take out the course marshall(on bike) at the Big Sur Marathon. I have also seen Ipod wearers almost being hit by emergency vehicles because they run where they shouldn't be running.

The problem is the complete lack of awareness that these "runners" have. The lane that is clear, is clear for a reason. It's not there for la-la Ipod wearers.

Wayne B wrote:

the wheelchair leader managed to run between the legs of a woman who moved suddenly because she was unaware of what was happening around her BECAUSE she was wearing headphones.

how could you hear a wheelchair coming anyway?

also, why is the wheelchair leader behind a woman?

oligio wrote:

Without the mid and back packers most road races, and marathons would not be in existence. Cant have it both ways.

Sure we can. Your belief, while altruistic and charitable, is entirely unfounded. You are confusing correlation with causation. There were many marathons and road races in existence before the 4+ hour marathon ranks exploded. What, did you think that Jeff Galloway single-handedly invented the sport or something? Don't be stupid. Besides, we're not talking about all or even most of the "mid and back packers" being affected by this ban, it would be a slim minority. Bolder Boulder backing down from 54,000 to 50,000 or even to 45,000 entries won't mean the demise of that race, just to throw out an example.

Lol well Im not going to let you know my name, but I have to let you know I ran in this race, well actually the 2.5mile run. and I was wearing my headphones for the entire race noone said anything to me, and as far as I know i was not disqualified as my time is on the active.com right now, I think thats a silly rule in reality, but if i had seen it posted I would not have worn the ear piece, either way it was a great run, fast track, I hope I run it in 09' also=)