>>>>>>****>>>>>> ARTICLE SAYS RUNNERS AREN'T ATHLETES!!!!<<<<<<******<

***"Are cross country runners athletes?

The top finishers certainly are. Morton’s Tim Sirbek ran five kilometers — or 3.1 miles — in a first-place time of 16:09. That’s an average of about five minutes a mile. Most of us would be lucky to run one mile in seven minutes.

Chesterton’s Mary Ballinger and Sarah Kehe took second and third, respectively in the 4K girls race, in clockings of 14:53 and 15:01. That’s better than a six-minute-mile pace, which many treadmills don’t even exceed.

But move down the overall finishers’ list to the boys who scored times of 20:02, 21:09 and 23:59. They were the last three in, and I’d hardly dub those times worthy of a semistate.

The final female finished in more than 20 minutes. Again, I’m glad she completed the course, but I wouldn’t exactly call it a great athletic performance.

The bottom line here is, aren’t at least a few cross country runners the ones who couldn’t hack it in other sports? "***

I don't think that the people running 22 minutes for 5k are athletes either...they probably are the kids who couldn't do any other sport and are just doing xc for health and for fun...

obviously this guy has never tried to run...or run 60+ miles a week for months at a time.

that guy's logic makes no sense at all. He says XC runners aren't athlete's cause the slowest kids suck. We'll, look at the worst baseball players and football players. They suck pretty bad too. Unbelieveable. Hate mail time.

This fool is getting E-mailed.

Everyone do the same, lets make him quit his job.

sent one to him...bump.

well since his article sucks, he must not qualify as columnist or a opinioned writer for that matter.

What a Jackass

Don't sweat it too much. First of all, the Post-Tribune is a second rate paper out of lovely Hammond/Gary, IN after The Times. So that puts things in perspective as to what kinds of idiots can write for that paper.

Secondly, I wonder if he made any effort to find out if some of those runners were competitive in other sports. He claims he can't "think" of any. I'm sure there are plenty.

Thirdly, the only morons who write this drivel or those who were never really good at any type of sport when they were younger, so they make themselves feel better by putting down kids today who have dedicated themselves and excelled.

You'd never see crap like this in a real newspaper.

I'm a complete loser for writing this, but here's mine.

I'm sure this is not the first letter you've received filled with complete disgust about your article. Maybe you have never ran a mile....or two, or 17 to become a great athlete. I can't be believe you really have a job as a sports writer. Just because a meet has a few slower athletes (who may have come out for cross country to get ready for basketball or some other sport, or just to get in shape), but this gives you no reason to label runners as non-athletes. So if someone in basketball can't make a three pointer, or make a slam dunk, he's not an athlete? What about the "athletes" that sit the bench at football games?

Your comment about cross country runners not being able to shine in other sports is totally off the realm of intelligence. A cross country and long distance ATHLETE must train year-round to be at the top. How can an athlete in the "premier" sports take a few weeks off, but they're still able to be at the top in their respective sports? Just about any proffesional heavy weight boxer could whoop the shit out of pro football player in a fight, so does this make all football players not athletes?

Anyone would be conditioned after running between 10-60 miles a week? What do you considered conditioned? Muscle tone? I definitely do not understand your interpretation of what an athlete is. Could you define this term for me?

Here's what I wrote:

Is a runner an athlete?

There are so many holes in your proposition I do not where to begin. But I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question if you answer mine:

Is a black person human?

Have a good day Mr. Breen

Check out what just popped into my mailbox:

Thank you for your e-mail. If this is in regards to the column I wrote on

cross country, unfortunately I will probably not be able to respond.

However, I do appreciate your e-mail.

guys, i love cross country and track as much as the next guy but this guys does have a point

but can u honestly call those back of the pack guys running 23+ for a 5k athletes?

they obviously dont train all that hard and dont posess any particular talent, theres nothin wrong with them or their participation in our sport but it does not make them athletes as pretty much anyone can do that

Iv seen runners in varsity races sprint the first 400 and start to walk once they enter the woods...are they athletes?

I run low 16s for a 5k so middle of the pack and if anyone even hinted that I or anyone within a reasonably time range of me was not an athlete Id be furious, but this guy made it quite clear that those with moderate talent and the will to train hard are in fact athletes

so take a minute to get off your rants and think abou the guys logic

hmmmm,

The point is, this is true for every sport. This guy decided to single out running, and make an attack on it. I take it as a personal blow. If the article was whether or not the people that are in the sucky end of all sports are athletes or not, then that would be one thing. Apparently, those who suck at running are not athletes, but those who can't shoot a basketball, but still play are athletes. Its not fair, how he singled it out. That is what I'm pissed about.

The word athlete comes from the Greek: a contender or one who contests.

That about covers any footrace I've ever seen or been a part of.

The Greeks didn't mention anything about being able to bench 300 lbs, make circus catches,or stuff a basketball.

Running was one of the original disciplines of the people who coined the word athlete.

To exlude running would be to rewrite the definition of athletics.

please, do you people believe everything you read?

i suppose you believe the polls that say bush is actually gonna win.

runners are not only not athletes, but also gullible!

He deserves 5000 e-mails saying that runners are some of the worlds most fit athletes. Bombing time

Mr. Breen,

Is Lance Armstrong an athlete, sir? And if so, what makes him more of an athlete than a kid who runs a twenty-two minute 5000m? The beauty of cross country is that a 20-minute 5K runner can achieve, personally, as much as a 15-minute 5k runner. I have raced hundreds of times in my life. I've only won a select few of those races. However, I can guarantee that I worked just as hard, fought just as long, and hurt just as much as the winners of those races. Your argument is flawed simply because it's not the runners' ability or time, but the his or her attitude that decides how much he or she can get out of it.

Sure, some people who run cross country are there because they were cut from other sports. Other sports have to cut players. Cross country doesn't. Even if you aren't one of the top 7 runners at your school (top 7 makes up a varsity squad), you can still run. In many ways, I respect the junior varsity runners even more than the varsity runners because they have no team to run for, no external motives. They run purely on what they have on the inside, which is a truly impressive thing.

Imagine, for a moment, jogging onto a football field to find you are your team's only player, set against any entire line. Then, imagine playing anyway. There, Mr. Breen, is JV cross country for you.

-Sean Stewart

That really hit the point and i can definitely relate. THat was really emotionally strong and beautiful grat job doode. :)

That was nice. I hope this guy gets flooded with E-mails.

E-mailed him.