Boston to Discriminate Against Mobility Impaired Atheles Again

This isn't "discrimination" in the sense that you seem to mean it. Discrimination would be a refusal to make reasonable accommodations . Keeping the streets closed down for many additional hours isn't a reasonable accommodation; it's going above and beyond. Would it be laudable for the BAA to cater more to MI athletes? Sure. But they aren't discriminating just because they changed the time cutoff. Every time cutoff is going to crush some dreams.

800 dude wrote:

This isn't "discrimination" in the sense that you seem to mean it. Discrimination would be a refusal to make reasonable accommodations . Keeping the streets closed down for many additional hours isn't a reasonable accommodation; it's going above and beyond. Would it be laudable for the BAA to cater more to MI athletes? Sure. But they aren't discriminating just because they changed the time cutoff. Every time cutoff is going to crush some dreams.

Sure it is. When the general field's times are adjusted it is by minutes and for AWDS it is hours. For some they don't even stand a chance to qualify now.

Would you accept ALL runners, male, female, young, old, those with connections and those without, to having say a 2:30:00 cutoff next year? All at once, no warning? Sure you could say the BAA can do what they want to do, but would it even be something they would entertain these days? You know the answer. There would be such an outrage that it would never happen.

AWDs are people too, not aliens. "Reasonable accommodation" are really a words for an excuse.

BAA's record is one of discrimination and it took a fight to get inclusion of fellow human athletes both female and the disabled. We are all runners with some differences.

Honestly?

Boston and everyother marathon should have a cut off time for everybody. Six hours sounds fair. If you can't drag your carcass through the finish line in 6 hours, regardless whether your are handicapped or not, you shouldn't be there.

ball to the wall? wrote:

Honestly?

Boston and everyother marathon should have a cut off time for everybody. Six hours sounds fair. If you can't drag your carcass through the finish line in 6 hours, regardless whether your are handicapped or not, you shouldn't be there.

Clueless you are. Wait until an accident or disease or service to your country leaves you with a broken or misfiring body.

Many give up right away, I suspect you'd be one for sure.

Honestly.

The actions you describe don't sound unreasonable to me. Moreover, if you think they have it in for you then you are pretty stupid for patronizing their business.

As a 2019 qualifier and past participant, I’d be really disappointed if they set the qualifying time at 2:30, but I wouldn’t be mad. It’s Boston's Race and they can set any time standard they want. There is no law requiring them to set their qualifying standards at certain marks.

The slowest qualifying time in the general population is 5:25 (80 and over female). Only two women in that Age Group finished Boston in 2016 ; one in 2017, zero in 2018. That qualifying bracket is hardly a wide net. Six hours and a 60 participant limit for persons with disabilities seems reasonable.

Morans United wrote:

ball to the wall? wrote:

Honestly?

Boston and everyother marathon should have a cut off time for everybody. Six hours sounds fair. If you can't drag your carcass through the finish line in 6 hours, regardless whether your are handicapped or not, you shouldn't be there.

Clueless you are. Wait until an accident or disease or service to your country leaves you with a broken or misfiring body.

Many give up right away, I suspect you'd be one for sure.

Honestly.

My self worth and sense of accomplishment is not measured by the number of marathon finisher medals hanging on the wall; marathons that would take me 12 hours to finish.

I can't run anymore; arthritis on the knees and an inherited, progressive heart defect did me in. None of this conditions were caused by anything I did.

So I walk. Last year I walked over 1600 miles, passed 1000 mile mark this week. I didn't give up, I didn't stay at home sulking, feeling sorry for myself while demanding everybody around me to accommodate me. I do what's possible.

I should demand Boston to accommodate me, too.

800 dude wrote:

This isn't "discrimination" in the sense that you seem to mean it. Discrimination would be a refusal to make reasonable accommodations . Keeping the streets closed down for many additional hours isn't a reasonable accommodation; it's going above and beyond.

Wrong.

The race "accommodates" 4:30 able-bodied runners, who are there through charity.

To not accommodate disabled runner who arguably have met the same or higher standard withing their impairments, is by definition discrimination.

How is the precedent “backwards”?

So, you gonna sue?

discriminater wrote:

800 dude wrote:

This isn't "discrimination" in the sense that you seem to mean it. Discrimination would be a refusal to make reasonable accommodations . Keeping the streets closed down for many additional hours isn't a reasonable accommodation; it's going above and beyond.

Wrong.

The race "accommodates" 4:30 able-bodied runners, who are there through charity.

To not accommodate disabled runner who arguably have met the same or higher standard withing their impairments, is by definition discrimination.

I don’t think you know what discrimination is.

It seems like a safety issue to me. When the stragglers in the mobility impaired division hit the hills at 17 miles they are going about 16 minutes a mile . The street gets packed with racers and the wheel chairs are a real hazard . It’s even worse when the wheel chairs come buzzing down the hill at 21 miles . Street is still packed and the chair is moving 15-18 mph. A dangerous situation.

Don't the MI participants go off early? So is Boston delaying the closing of the street by 2 hours to get the adjusted completion time? Isn't the course pretty much shut down all morning anyway?

Have you spoken to BAA? It would be interesting to hear their reasoning. Is the 60 athlete cutoff proportionate to the acceptance rate for all other categories based on number of entries? Maybe try reaching out to the BAA. Also, they might be more open to listening to you if you don't immediately accuse them of discrimination.

blarg wrote:

Have you spoken to BAA? It would be interesting to hear their reasoning. Is the 60 athlete cutoff proportionate to the acceptance rate for all other categories based on number of entries? Maybe try reaching out to the BAA. Also, they might be more open to listening to you if you don't immediately accuse them of discrimination.

*Rojo rejoices after reading this thread*

This post is spot on. You should go to the BAA directly and ask for their reasoning. That way, you can make a better argument to sympathetic persons when/if their reasoning is garbage. It's organizing 101. You need to show that you've done some work to try to get them to be reasonable. Then it makes it easier for you to build support and gain support. I would message them, they'll send back something that is generic/not enough. Circulate that response and then start a sign-on letter to get them to reconsider what they are doing citing reasons that it is discriminatory. That should at least get them back to the table.

Sometimes organizations are just out of touch and do things because it sounded good for a brief moment. Hey maybe we could save money because the roads are open too long...okay let's tighten the standards for mobility impaired athletes.

Keep at it and let us know how we can help.

And I'm mad that the OTQ is 2:19. THAT seems discriminatory to everyone that runs >2:19.

Oh well. It's not like Boston is known for being all inclusive. Also, virtually everyone involved in the bombing, already ran the event.

blarg wrote:

Have you spoken to BAA? It would be interesting to hear their reasoning. Is the 60 athlete cutoff proportionate to the acceptance rate for all other categories based on number of entries? Maybe try reaching out to the BAA. Also, they might be more open to listening to you if you don't immediately accuse them of discrimination.

I just heard about this yesterday. I have been involved talking to the RD and the AWD (Athletes With Disabilities) director in the past and they were very receptive to some changes, especially Dave. I would talk to Dave first and then the BAA. Yes, I know how to be diplomatic and not press hot buttons unnecessarily. I do know some have threatened legal action in the past and justifiably so. There are some larger organizations that are likely to also apply pressure to loosen the time restrictions or do so on a more gradual basis.

I have no plans to run Boston at least for a while, but I know athletes who will suffer for this inconvenience by the towns. Tons of money come into the communities, they aren't hurting for funds.

Yes, AWDs do get a little earlier start and I feel certain they/we would welcome an earlier start if that allowed more to run.