Marathon Age Requirements

The Boston course is ineligible for records because of too much elevation loss and because the end is located too far from the start. NY is a challenging course and records don't get set there. Plenty of other marathons out there that accept youngsters.

Are you proposing that in an effort to combate age discrimination, RDs should ban 70+ year olds from competing?

If a kid died...his parents could sue the insurance company for millions. (loss of chance based on life expectancy)

In the other hand. If a 70 yo person died...the cost for the insurance would be lower.

It is really a logistical issue. Big races with piles of participants do not want to have to deal with kids on the course and do not want to be obligated to make sure kids get reunited with their parents amidst the throngs of thousands of participants. It is a hassle that they do not need as most of the events that age limit have no shortage of participants.

Barakus'Obama wrote:

If a kid died...his parents could sue the insurance company for millions. (loss of chance based on life expectancy)

In the other hand. If a 70 yo person died...the cost for the insurance would be lower.

Have any of the competitors who have died in marathons successfully sued? I'm having a hard time seeing what the claim would be.

For any organizer, running or otherwise, dealing with kids (legal minors) opens up a whole range of additional risks, liabilities, and headaches.

It's a tough enough job as it is without the hassle of dealing with runners who cannot sign their own forms or legally "take care of themselves." I also expect that insurance rates are higher when minors are involved.

We live in a very legally complex and litigious society. You can't fully appreciate this until you open your own business, trying to do everything by the book.

Age descrimination wrote:

Cathy O'Brien ran 2:34 at age 16 and was 9th in the Olympic Trials in 1984, but wouldn't be allowed in NYC or Boston under todays rules.

O'Brien's time is a national high school record and may be safe for a while because nobody gets a chance to try and beat it with good competition.

Cathy's record will go down in the next few years. My best guess is 2014 by Alana Hadley. She's run 3 (more?) HMs in 1:16-1:17 within the last 6 months or so and is still only 14 or 15. Alana loves the longer stuff we are told. To be honest, I'd be surprised if she didn't beat it. Question is whether she and her Dad will decide she should do one before 18. I suspect Cathy's record may be the deciding factor.

Precious Roy wrote:

It is really a logistical issue. Big races with piles of participants do not want to have to deal with kids on the course and do not want to be obligated to make sure kids get reunited with their parents amidst the throngs of thousands of participants. It is a hassle that they do not need as most of the events that age limit have no shortage of participants.

So that would be an issue with a 10yr old, but 16?!? They can do all sorts of things legally at 16, could run a marathon, but may struggle to find Mom afterwards? Nope. Not buying it.

>19 has the highest completion rate of any age group

People under 18 should run shorter distances anyways.

The core problem for >18 is liability. On courses where there are a lot of logistical issues (getting you to Hopkington, hanging out by the Narrows bridge, etc) the race is supposed to take responsibility for minors (and obtain parents permission). Accepting that responsibility adds to liability costs and depending on the other logistics the RD has to deal with not worth the trouble. Potentially the insurance carrier is saying "let minors in, I won't insure you".

When dealing with minors there's a whole extra group of laws and restrictions in each state. It makes no difference if anyone has WON a suit, all they have to do is start one and it still costs the race money, and parents are a huge source of potential lawsuits.

Keith Stone wrote:

The core problem for >18 is liability. On courses where there are a lot of logistical issues (getting you to Hopkington, hanging out by the Narrows bridge, etc) the race is supposed to take responsibility for minors (and obtain parents permission). Accepting that responsibility adds to liability costs and depending on the other logistics the RD has to deal with not worth the trouble. Potentially the insurance carrier is saying "let minors in, I won't insure you".

When dealing with minors there's a whole extra group of laws and restrictions in each state. It makes no difference if anyone has WON a suit, all they have to do is start one and it still costs the race money, and parents are a huge source of potential lawsuits.

Where are you getting that about the race being supposed to take responsibility for minors? I have never heard of that doctrine.

Plenty of 5ks and 10ks let children run.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

.

Where are you getting that about the race being supposed to take responsibility for minors? I have never heard of that doctrine.

Plenty of 5ks and 10ks let children run.[/quote]

In a 5k/10k, you have most everyone finishing in less than an hour over a course that is easily monitored. In a marathon, you have people out on the course for hours and hours with thousands at the finish trying to find family. If you let a kid race, you cannot just shove the kid on to the street after they finish and wish him luck finding his family. Also, if a kid goes down and needs medical treatment, there are consent issues involved that may obligate the race to be able to track down the parents and get them to the kids. And the parental consent waiver is not iron clad. Many states have limits on the effect of a parental waiver.

Precious Roy wrote:

Concerned Citizen wrote:

.

Where are you getting that about the race being supposed to take responsibility for minors? I have never heard of that doctrine.

Plenty of 5ks and 10ks let children run.

In a 5k/10k, you have most everyone finishing in less than an hour over a course that is easily monitored. In a marathon, you have people out on the course for hours and hours with thousands at the finish trying to find family. If you let a kid race, you cannot just shove the kid on to the street after they finish and wish him luck finding his family. Also, if a kid goes down and needs medical treatment, there are consent issues involved that may obligate the race to be able to track down the parents and get them to the kids. And the parental consent waiver is not iron clad. Many states have limits on the effect of a parental waiver.[/quote]

So when kids go to the Justine Bieber concert, are the concert promoters responsible for making sure that they find their parents afterward? Children ride on planes and trains all the time (they used to more in the past).

Why wouldn't a parental consent to medical treatment for their child be valid?

Some races, such as Houston, and Grandma's only have a12 yr old age requirement, and the LA Marathon does not have any age requirment so I doubt the insurance issue is all that big of a hurdle, or all races would be 18 and older.

Concerned Citizen wrote:Where are you getting that about the race being supposed to take responsibility for minors? I have never heard of that doctrine.

Plenty of 5ks and 10ks let children run.

Yes, and every one of them have the parents sign the waiver instead of the child. The PARENTS have to acknowledge the risk, not the minor.

A 5K or 10K the parent comes up and stays at the start/finish, is usually in contact with the minor for the majority of the time, and can quickly identify that the minor is on the course, missing, etc. A lot different than transporting the minor to a remote location like New York or Boston where they are essentially in control of the minor for an extended period of time. I'd be willing to bet that's why Chicago goes with 16 instead of 18, since the start and finish are together, and it's easy for a parent to accompany the minor to the start.

Rules are different state to state. One of the reasons any officer of a USATF club that has youth programs has to get a background check is due to these rules. The long and short of it is the liability issue though, if your carrier won't offer you insurance you change the rules until they will or you find someone that will.

As noted in other notes airlines let minors travel, but they have to be registered as "unaccompanied minors" and often wear identifying badges. The airlines "take possession" of the minors, and are responsible for them getting to their final destination. Airlines will usually require unaccompanied minors stay on the plane until all others depart and will have a gate agent and/or flight attendants track their whereabouts unless there is a registered chaperone.

Airlines do not take charge of unaccompanied minors under any law that I know of. If you know of one, please cite it.

If you're worried about a parent suing, they can sign a liability waiver; liability waivers are almost always valid for recreational activities.

There's theory and then there's reality. All of you arguing that marathon organizers should allow minors might try organizing a big race yourselves. It will give you a whole new perspective.

complex analysis wrote:

There's theory and then there's reality. All of you arguing that marathon organizers should allow minors might try organizing a big race yourselves. It will give you a whole new perspective.

More I was just wondering why the wide variation.

The LA marathon has no age requirement at all. The Houston and Grandma's Marathon have a 12 yr old age requirement, others 16 yr old requirement, and then many with an 18 yr old requirement.

The Grandma's is a point to point course and it still only has a 12 yr old requirement (contray to Keith's point).

Lots of the reasons seem to make sense on the surface but none explain the wide variety. If insurance was a big issue we would see more uniformity.

Somewhat surprised that NYC is at 18 yrs old when my earliest memories of kids running marathons was Wesley Paul who ran NYC each year at pretty young ages. I guess they made some changes. Interesting though, I always thought that Ms. Hadley would make her debut at the NYC marathon, but unless she waits until the fall of 2015 that isn't going to happen. That may not even happen then if the trials are in late 2015 or early 2016.

complex analysis wrote:

There's theory and then there's reality. All of you arguing that marathon organizers should allow minors might try organizing a big race yourselves. It will give you a whole new perspective.

Maybe the organizers of the Los Angeles Marathon, which has no age requirement, could shed some light on this for us?

Chicago didn't have an age limit until 1985. Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune that addresses the then-new age limit. It mentions a bunch of paternalistic concern for children's health, but there is no mention of insurance and liability.http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-05-06/sports/8501280144_1_chicago-marathon-chicago-race-age-requirement