B.A.A Updates policy for net downhill qualifying races

Good. Tired of people running down mountains and claiming it as their PR.

I am also tired of people who claim their Boston Marathon as a PR.

It's a one way downhill course as well.

Interesting, such things never bother me. PR bragging is like a currency that has been decommissioned.

I know someobody out there is keeping track of these things. how many people per year will this affect, based on numbers from recent Boston fields?

By the way, I'm aware of a couple of races that are significantly downhill, in the 2000ft range. But is there a race that is actually over 6000ft? That actually sounds like an awful experience, I don't care how fast you run.

Mesa Marathon is going to EXPLODE. It has a smooth drop of about 1,000 feet and almost always beautiful weather. Point to point, so if you get a tailwind it is insanely fast. Since it is less than a 1,500 foot drop, it will not get any time adjustment.

I don't run marathons but this makes perfect sense to me - the mile record would be 3:24 from Mike Boit (still a quality runner - Olympic 800m bronze) if downhill races were accepted as records

Revel goes home devastated though

Great news, and I like the idea of adding time instead of banning them outright.

This will probably unfairly affect a few legitimate courses where the elevation loss is balanced by high altitude or lots of uphills, but no one's running those to get their BQ anyways.

I like this a lot. 1500 feet still seems plenty generous for no conversion. That keeps something like Mesa untouched. I would've been fine going down to OTQ eligible courses tbh. People can still seek out the flyers but will know to add 5 or 10 to their times. 1.5k keeps a lot of the gentle net downhill races not even close to the cutoff. Revel races are all fine. I don't think anything really exists over 6k. Runners will know to take the +10 at Revel races. What it does is help people on the cut line that ran their qualifiers on more honest courses. It might get someone in who barely qualified & push someone else who got in by a few more minutes but did it on a downhill course. I think the race is taking the stronger runner in that scenario. I know there are other factors, like weather & altitude, that can drastically move a marathon time. So they went with a big number like 1.5k to start to adjust elevation. Feel like that's more than fair. I hope start corrals/bib numbers move with the adjustments too.

The race homepage shows people starting in pitch black and pouring rain, doesn't seem like it's THAT perfect. A 1,000 foot drop isn't necessarily worth traveling across the country for, there are plenty of races like that.

Have you run Boston? I've run Boston several times including the course record year with the tailwind and also in 2014 at the fittest I've ever been, and I've never set a PR there.

I feel like this is a good policy for people seeking out big downhill races just to BQ.

Man, this is going to dramatically increase the popularity of one of my favorite marathons. I could also see courses like Erie getting close to sellout numbers again.

There are actually lots of races that drop a full mile. Might as well pre-emptively ban anything bigger, in case someone comes out with a new supershoe that makes such a course feasible.

The Revel website now only shows three races - and only one in 2026. Did they know this was coming and decide to bail out of the business?

I think this happened because of the Atlanta Marathon fiasco, where they aren't able to take people who ran 26.1 miles on a tough course. The unfairness of letting somebody who bombed 4,500 feet down Mount Charleston or Big Bear or Snoqualmie Pass really was pretty stark because of that.

1,500 feet is a lot. There are super fast courses like Mesa and Rogue Valley/Medford that are less than 1,500 feet net downhill. A 3% gradient is worth 24 seconds per mile.

I think the elevation requirements are interesting. The research I have seen shows 8 seconds per mile per one percent of grade. Mount Charleston has a 4% grade, so that's 32 seconds per mile or basically 14 minutes (actual math is 13:59). So even with the penalty, Revel Mount Charleston is still worth 4 minutes over a flat course.

What I think this will do is kill races at the bottom end of the penalties, have a race with 1,608 feet net drop? Nobody will run that when they could run a race with 2,999 feet net drop and incur the same penalty. This will also cause races in places like western New York, New Hampshire and North Carolina, where people can run gentle decline 1,498 feet courses to pop up.

It's a start but will probably be adjusted after the first year. I am glad that this tells me that Boston isn't going to cut times again. With them getting to 2:55 for open athletes, too many people are pushing the limits and/or resorting to performance enhancing drugs to qualify.

Here's hoping that they require races to have random drug testing in the near future. Too many bros watching Matt Choi, the Jeans Guy and other fitness influencers likely on steroids are taking them without thinking about long-term health impacts.

...and what about Nike Trampoline shoes? Where is the penalty for those?

It's kind of funny - this rule change personally affects me in absolutely no way whatsoever, yet it brings a smile to my face knowing that people who are trying to game the system via a loophole will now have to train harder.

Realistically these adjustments aren't strong enough IMO. It should be something like 5 minutes for 1200-2000', 10 minutes for 2000-3000' and 15 minutes for anything above that.

I love this immeasurably. Suck it, nerds.

I see 2026 still allows downhills so expect a rush now, and no longer double dip races. 2027 starts the day after 2026 finishes.

With this change I'm debating changing my Phoenix registration to Mesa. I could go for the course that's about 2 minutes faster, or I can stick with the slower, but more "honest" course. It's a tough decision. Maybe I should just be strong and stay with my original plans