Article on the topic with a number of quotes from BAA. Key points:
-This points to the same conclusion that its a result of last years sexism allegations
-They expanded the women's field by 10 runners "to give more women a chance to compete for prize money"
-"The two minute gap before wave one provides our elite men with a contained, elite racing opportunity" and the success of the early womens start "encouraged (them) to mirror that with an elite mens start"
The most egregious line to me is this:
“We don’t have 300 women who want to line up in Hopkinton this year for the early start,” Reilly said, “though that would be a nice problem to have.”
Maybe letsrun can reach out to some of the 100 women with times within 5:30 of the cutoff and see if they were offered this opportunity. I'd be curious what they think about Reilly's comment. Wouldn't it be a logical conclusion then to have extended an offer to the top 300 women, to see if they want in?
https://www.womensrunning.com/2019/03/news/new-rules-apply-to-boston-marathon-prize-money_101029
BouldeRunner wrote:
-This points to the same conclusion that its a result of last years sexism allegations
-They expanded the women's field by 10 runners "to give more women a chance to compete for prize money"
-"The two minute gap before wave one provides our elite men with a contained, elite racing opportunity" and the success of the early womens start "encouraged (them) to mirror that with an elite mens start"
Insane
Fact: Nobody actually believes in equality, unless they foresee a benefit in pursuing it.
There should be zero prize money for masters runners. Full stop.
BouldeRunner wrote:
When checking my bib number I happened to notice that my start is at 10:02 AM, two minutes after the start of the men's elite race. This is sort of a shocking development to me and isn't getting the coverage it should be getting. While this will have little impact on me, it could have a huge impact on some sub-elites. This means that only people accepted into the elite field (which is, by my understanding, the hardest elite field in the country to gain entrance to) are eligible for prizes. There are a number of instances over the last 19 years of men and women finishing in the money out of Corral 1, it's not just a 2018 phenomenon. It will probably have a bigger impact on masters racers who are far more likely to finish in the money out of Corral 1. So this decision has the following impacts:
-Restricts prize money to elites only (including masters prize money)
-Means a 2:20 marathoner, who is unlikely to be in the elite field, probably has no one to run with until they catch stragglers who fall off the elite pack
-Means masters racers who want a shot at prize money and get accepted into the masters elite, have no one to run with until they get caught by guys who started 2 minutes behind them
Here is the start timeline:
https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/enter/participant-basicsLast night I spoke about this with a sub-elite who has earned money out of Corral 1 and we discussed why this is happening and what better alternatives exist. We both think this is happening because of some accusations of sexism following last year. When Jessica Chichester finished 6th out of Wave 1, some said it was sexist that she wasn't eligible for prize money but that men who ran out of Wave 1 were. The BAA ended up paying her and two other women who ran out of Wave 1, as well as the three Corral 1 men who finished top 15. Maybe this is a response to that, as they clearly note that you have to be in the elite start to get prize money, so this way men and women are treated equally.
I understand the reasoning:
1) Separate women's start is important for highlighting their race (although slightly less important on a non record eligible course)
2) Treat the women and men equally through equal prize money, equal field sizes eligible for prize money, and an equal race opportunity
3) Charter buses and staging in the church can only accommodate so many elites
An alternative though, is instead of removing opportunities for sub-elite and masters men, add a sub-elite women's field that starts immediately behind the elite women at 9:32. Looking at entries, there are 8 women in Corral 1 and an additional 130 in the first 4 corrals (sub 2:57:37 according to current bib number thread). The BAA could offer these 138 women, a choice "race with the men and have an opportunity to run fast but forgo any prize money" OR "still take a school bus to Hopkinton, wait in the AV, but have the chance to start in a separated corral, 10 feet behind elite women and have a shot at prize money." This is giving them the oppportunity men in Corral 1 have had for years. Everyone must choose one or the other. Most women between 2:45 and 2:57 would probably choose to race with the men and chase an OTQ, and they would know they waived their right to prize money.
BouldeRunner wrote:
Article on the topic with a number of quotes from BAA. Key points:
-This points to the same conclusion that its a result of last years sexism allegations
-They expanded the women's field by 10 runners "to give more women a chance to compete for prize money"
-"The two minute gap before wave one provides our elite men with a contained, elite racing opportunity" and the success of the early womens start "encouraged (them) to mirror that with an elite mens start"
The most egregious line to me is this:
“We don’t have 300 women who want to line up in Hopkinton this year for the early start,” Reilly said, “though that would be a nice problem to have.”
Maybe letsrun can reach out to some of the 100 women with times within 5:30 of the cutoff and see if they were offered this opportunity. I'd be curious what they think about Reilly's comment. Wouldn't it be a logical conclusion then to have extended an offer to the top 300 women, to see if they want in?
https://www.womensrunning.com/2019/03/news/new-rules-apply-to-boston-marathon-prize-money_101029
Why do people want equality at the expense of another unrelated group? It was a bad situation for women that so few were eligible to receive prize money. What kind of person would see that and say we should create a similarly bad situation for men so it is equally bad for both groups?
There's no "bad" or downside, quite simply unmerited charity has been eliminated. Level up or shut up.
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
There's no "bad" or downside, quite simply unmerited charity has been eliminated. Level up or shut up.
Paying $200 to enter the race was charity? Now runners paid $200 and months later are being told that they are not a part of the race.
You're confused. Probably suffering from butthurt by proxy since you're not a 2:19 marathoner.
LRC editorial on the matter went live earlier today:
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/04/boston-the-peoples-olympics-the-elitist-marathon/
Thanks for taking up the cause letsrun.
Brothers,
I have to agree with your editorial. There is a good reason to showcase the women in an early start—it makes for good sport to be able to see them, and letting all the first wave men start at the men's gun makes for good sport too. A good exciting race is the point. I know. I wrote the book on it.
Tom (made the movie too.)
So...I"m wondering if any other women are reading this thread, and if they are in favor of the separate start to showcase the women.
I ask, because I've heard this argument made several times, often quite vehemently, but never by a woman. While I have heard quite a few women talk about the challenges of running in a separate women's only start, and the dilemma of choosing which start to run in.
I'm not a female, but adding some female voices to this discussion:
https://www.womensrunning.com/2019/03/news/new-rules-apply-to-boston-marathon-prize-money_101029
While I have sympathy for the (few dozen?) 2:19-2:24 guys who registered thinking they would be in the elite start, I tend to think that the Women's Running authors make a lot of sense. They say that this start is better for gender equity, clean sport, and the race's ability to keep Yorek-style jokers from out front; all of those things are unequivocally true (and, in my opinion, meaningful, but YMMV).
The amount of attention that this is getting is also really indicative of some blind spots on this website and in the sub-elite running community in general. This is not to say Boston has executed this change flawlessly (I think, for example, that the masters athletes for both genders all actually belong in Wave 1, unless they have a time that would make them an invited elite and choose to compete for elite prize money rather than masters money; I also think, Boston being a WMM, that they would be fully-justified in having smaller rather than larger elite fields, including the women's; and lastly, I think it sucks for the sub-elites that they registered under the expectation that they would be able to compete with the invited elites and then found out only shortly before that they wouldn't); but the amount of ink spilled on this (and the LetsRun cry for a sit-in to correct this injustice) strongly calls to mind the truism that "privilege is when equality feels like oppression." That really seems to apply here.
I truly wish Letsrun had shown more outrage when this was just a "women's problem." With that being said, I think the solution is relatively simple:
1.) Anyone who wins prize money by chip time, not gun time, should get duplicate prize money. Even if you solve the mens' problem here, you still won't solve the womens'. This isn't that expensive. Budget for it and make it happen.
I thought the masters' vet story was interesting. I bet women with a chance to earn money in the masters' vet category aren't all that fast, so I REALLY don't think they should be forced to start with the elites and run by themselves for 26 miles just cause they might win a grand. Perhaps for masters' and all non-overall womens' categories, prize money should just be awarded on gun time, full stop.
2.) Take say 300 runners for the womens' early start. Accept anyone with a shadow of a chance of earning prize money in the overall womens' category. I've run lots of races that start 300 people at once. It's NBD.
Then expand the men's "elite" start in a similar fashion to include a few hundred runners.
But still do #1.
My vote is one race. Use drones to capture great footage of the lead women.
Yep. It works in Berlin.
Just so you know, there are at least 2 IAAF Gold Medal Races that I’ve done that have a separate elite start that has a gap of closer to FIVE minutes to the mass start.
The Seoul Marathon in April.
The Singapore marathon in December.
In both these races, the elite pen has less than 100 people.
Equality? wrote:
Fact: Nobody actually believes in equality, unless they foresee a benefit in pursuing it.
+1
Only kindergarteners and commies believe in equality, and both of them are in fantasy land.
LetsRun.com wrote:
LRC editorial on the matter went live earlier today:
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/04/boston-the-peoples-olympics-the-elitist-marathon/
You took it down?!?!