Fair our foul: Race directors of race that was 81% male last yr. are mandating that the 2020 race be exactly 50-50 male/female.

I'd really like to know what "system" the RD thinks are keeping women from running ultras. It seems that modern day America is obsessed with painting everyone as a victim. Look, the cost of child-care is huge. As a new parent, I get that but what else are we talking about?

I'm all for increasing the number of women ultras but where do we stop the number madness in society? Why does he stop at male-female? Should the entrants also be mandated to be certain percentage- Caucasian, White, Black, Hispanic as well. What about making it mirror the income level distribution of America as well?

Should we insist gymnastics classes for kids be 50% male?

What does "Fair Our Foul" mean?

rojo wrote:

Perhaps we should just interview the race director.

This is just crazy talk. Quash that thought before someone confuses you with a running industry journalist.

I would guess that the RD has been poisoned by the current multicultural/diversity environment in the US, and has then conflated participation in this event with unrelated issues. It's pretty self-centered for him to consider his event as important and connected to larger issues isn't it? The RD is virtue signaling, one of the worst aspects of today's multicultural toxicity. Here's hoping this race fails.

rojo wrote:

I'd really like to know what "system" the RD thinks are keeping women from running ultras. It seems that modern day America is obsessed with painting everyone as a victim. Look, the cost of child-care is huge. As a new parent, I get that but what else are we talking about?

I'm all for increasing the number of women ultras but where do we stop the number madness in society? Why does he stop at male-female? Should the entrants also be mandated to be certain percentage- Caucasian, White, Black, Hispanic as well. What about making it mirror the income level distribution of America as well?

Should we insist gymnastics classes for kids be 50% male?

rojo wrote:

I'd really like to know what "system" the RD thinks are keeping women from running ultras. It seems that modern day America is obsessed with painting everyone as a victim. Look, the cost of child-care is huge. As a new parent, I get that but what else are we talking about?

I'm all for increasing the number of women ultras but where do we stop the number madness in society? Why does he stop at male-female? Should the entrants also be mandated to be certain percentage- Caucasian, White, Black, Hispanic as well. What about making it mirror the income level distribution of America as well?

Should we insist gymnastics classes for kids be 50% male?

Something that the Loon Mountain race (has been the US Mountain Championships several times) did 2 years ago that seems to have worked and maybe what this race should try and do rather that create a lottery to cap the males running the race, is the first time women runners got a 50% discount in 2018. Loon has predominately been around 70% male sign up and using the trail sisters discount (as it was called) got about 300 women to sign up in the program and led the race to be 51% female and 49% male. This year, with no specific discount to first time women, they had more pre-registered women than men this year, showing that it worked.

Perhaps the RD would argue that women are deterred from signing up because the event is currently so male dominated. So it becomes a sort of feedback loop that only gets worse. But in the end of they can't find enough women then they absolutely shouldnt hold that against men that do.

Thanks for your input. I'm male, live in CO, and run mountain races of nearly all distances (5K => 100M) - perhaps we know of each other. Regardless, in reading the ongoing discussion that has occurred after my post on page 1, I wonder how many people even read it (re: looking at you too rojo). Specifically, the RD has NOT mandated a 50/50 M/F split it the race, it is merely a goal at this point. Ergo - there will be a lottery for males and one for females, each is allotted 62 slots. Neither will be reduced if one gender does not have that many applicants, rather, the unused slots will be ADDED back to the other gender, so as to still allow 124 total participants. Example - 100 males apply, 50 females apply. Result: 74 (62+12) slots are allocated to the male lottery, ALL female applicants get in automatically (no female lottery necessary in this instance). To me at least, this is FAR more reasonable than the most of the misguided arguments on this thread seem to be based on. While some/many may still take exception, we should at least be basing our arguments on the actual details of their new plan.

So, is the RD simply creating this convoluted system to try to get coverage? Pretty cynical if so, and pretty useless if the net impact will be no impact at all. I suspect identitarian virtue signaling on his part. Market the race, encourage female applicants if you'd like, but this pushing of a 50/50 split (that isn't going to really be a 50/50 split in practice) is both annoying and disingenuous in its execution.

I would recommend that people visit the site and read the policy and the pdf before concluding what will and will not be.

https://www.highlonesome100.com/lottery

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57b7a208e6f2e1dd67e45a36/t/5d115820eb1970000169216c/1561417766083/2020+Initial+Lottery+Policies+and+Design_High+Lonesome+100_Final.pdf

So, to address the issue that the event won't have people to meet the cap: Sure it will. There is a waiting list and the number of runners will NOT be 50/50 this year. The allocation of spots will initially be 50/50 but if hundreds of men apply and only 20 women, the remaining 42 spots for women would be filled by men (there are 62 spots for each gender this year, not including 14 more Discretionary Slots).

Yes, that likely means that 100% of qualifying female applicants will get in. But if the organizers feel that is the best way to grow female participation in THEIR event, that is their choice. Perhaps in the next year the number of applicants from women would grow from 20 to 30, and still more spots would be reallocated to men. The year after that it could grow to 48 women, and still more spots would go to men. In short, qualifying women would have a 100% chance of getting in until their applicants exceed their spots, which could take years and years (if ever) and then the event would be 50/50.

I'm sure that someone will suggest that the women's race will then have totally unqualified women who just get to "sign up." No, there are qualifying standards that must be met:

Finish a 50 mile or 100k trail race between Nov 1st, 2018 and November 10th, 2019.

Finish a 100+ mile trail race within the past 5 years

I'm curious what others thing about the weighting of the lottery: "Trail work hours, volunteering at the race, previous finishes, and previous unsuccessful lottery attempts will all boost an applicants odds."

As for categories for Trans athletes: LetsRun posters have been screaming for years to a separate category for Trans athletes or that they should be undergoing treatment to compete, etc. It seems that this race is doing exactly what people have wanted and thought fair.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57b7a208e6f2e1dd67e45a36/t/5d116588659b550001172142/1561421198249/Transgender+and+Non-Binary+Policy_High+Lonesome+100_Final.pdf

"While some/many may still take exception, we should at least be basing our arguments on the actual details of their new plan."

You must be new here. This happens often on these boards. Someone (including the owner of the site) will try to stir the pot but the premise or source of controversy will be misunderstood from the get go. Frustrating, isn't it?

Before I dug into the responses too much I went to the site to see how much I could educate myself on the real plan, in the words of the event management team. I reached a very different understanding and conclusion than I would have by reading just the responses to the OP.

For the purpose of taking a long view and trying to increase female participation in the sport, I think it is an interesting approach and not nearly as objectionable as some posts suggest. In fact, I find it commendable that they are going to try it this way.

So, they will allow extra men in if they can't fill the spots with women or someone non-binary first.

What you are saying is that the men aren't too slow and stupid to get in line first if they want to run so , we will handicap them so that the rest of less capable of getting in line early humanity can catch up. Then to thank them for accepting the unfair advantage of going to the back of the line, they can have any extra spots. No thanks! Not only that, why would any self respecting male forgive and forget this blatant bad faith behavior. Keep your race. Or maybe, add fancy chocolate and some colored cornstarch to throw around and call it whatever you want maybe the people you want more of will sign up?

I actually met my wife at a 100-mile. Getting chicked has its advantages.

Well, you actually bring up a good point about how stupid this idea is. Suppose you and your wife want to join the race. Or a couple of friends, one or two of which are male? I didn't read all those rules, maybe it's like a popular night club where you get in if you bring some girl the bouncers deem suitable for the place?

kmaclam wrote:

"While some/many may still take exception, we should at least be basing our arguments on the actual details of their new plan."

You must be new here. This happens often on these boards. Someone (including the owner of the site) will try to stir the pot but the premise or source of controversy will be misunderstood from the get go. Frustrating, isn't it?

Actually not, been lurking for years (with sporadic posts). I was just hoping that in a thread restricted to registered users only (hey, I had to register), the discussion might be a little more informed and civil. Doh!

On a second note, to at least shed a little light on this question posed: "I'm curious what others thing about the weighting of the lottery: "Trail work hours, volunteering at the race, previous finishes, and previous unsuccessful lottery attempts will all boost an applicants odds." I would say this is not all that unusual for trail ultras, fact is they can be significantly more difficult to put on than your average road race. Just setting up aid stations in remote woods/mountains, etc... can present significant challenges, and in fact is part of the reason Hardrock cancelled this year (re: due to the significant snowfall and subsequent avalanches in the CO high country this winter, the race committee was uncertain if they would even be able to get to some aid station locations). Much in the same light, they also have trail crews that start to clear trails from winter debris as much as a month in advance of the race in some cases - I've already run on parts of the HR course this summer and had to crawl over 20' high piles of downed trees (from the avalanches). It can be backbreaking, otherwise thankless work for those who undertake it, so race committees offering lottery incentives for doing so is understandable. Using prior attempts, finishes, and etc... to weight the lottery is another story altogether, but also not completely unusual in the big scheme of things.

Lastly, to the question of virtue signaling, good call, this argument may in fact hold some merit. Due to the rising popularity of hard trail 100's, the nearly impossible (for a beginner) Hardrock lottery, numerous "pop-up" (re: my euphemistic term) 100's have emerged in CO in the last couple years, perhaps at least in part to fill the void of the HR lottery losers. Announcing this new gender policy may indeed be a publicity ploy and/or at least part of the overall picture.

[Note: I am not associated with the High Lonesome race committee, or any race committee for that matter, nor have I run or even been interested in running it - if for no other reason than I've done a couple 100's and don't have any immediate plans to do any more.]

I don't know much about ultra running, but how is this significantly different from say the Boston Marathon?

To those saying "Nobody keeps women from registering.": That's correct, and nobody keeps the RD from implementing whatever selection system he prefers.

To rojo: I don't personally believe this is a big issue but maybe the RD thinks women would be more encouraged to do this race if a larger percentage of participants were women.

I heard he owns a bar too and he's going to start this amazing promotion on Thursdays because of his steady moral compass. It will be called Ladies Night. Ladies will get in free, while guys will pay a $10 cover. Caleb is amazing.

The right answer is to accept males/females in the same proportion that applied. The race director knows this. This is a gimmick. Look at all the attention this has brought to his tiny race. Male and female applications will increase. The racer cap will increase. He will be a gender equality darling.

He probably fine-tuned his trolling skills using multiple aliases on these very message boards.

I guess I fail to see why there is any need for this. To me, it seems like the RD is just trying to make a political statement and get publicity (as others have said). I don’t see how this is going to make a huge difference in the number of women who want to participate. At this time, there just aren’t as many women as men who want to run 100 mile ultras. There is nothing preventing women from entering these races, and if it’s a lottery, then a woman has just as much chance to get in as a man. It’s seems a little like a university saying they are cutting men’s track to comply with Title IX, or affirmative action. Say you have 200 men and 100 women apply for the lottery then you would expect the entrants to end up approximately 70% men and 30 % women. But with this RD’s lottery system you end up with a disportionate percentage of women to men based on the percentage of men and women who entered the lottery. It’s the RD’s race, so he can do whatever he wants and people can chose to enter, or not to enter. But I still think the whole thing is silly. Also, as a female, what’s so bad about having a lot of men around you in a race? :)