The Boston Quafier Lie

[Sasha Pachev]

Found an interesting article at

http://www.milforddailynews.com/state/x1683624493/Economy-runs-down-marathoners

It was linked to at Marathonguide.Com.

What I found rather perplexing. In between the lines it seemed to be saying that running a Boston Qualifier is so impossible for the average runner than his only way into Boston is to fund-raise. The reporter had not even considered the possibility that in lieu of the funds the aspiring runner could try more consistent training with higher mileage. My jaw just drops, and I cannot help it. I am speechless. Here on the blog we have seen a good number of runners of very average, often quite a bit below average ability that made it to Boston through proper training. Yet the prevailing opinion is very much in line with the article.

The lesson I learn from this is that we live in the age of subtle lies. It is easy to believe them because they are told believably with a great deal of professional eloquence and because everyone around us seems to believe them. But there is a pattern to them. They all smell like the Boston Qualifier Lie.

[Paul Petersen]

I must have read a different article. Or least have a different set of eyes. The article I read was about the effect of the economy on fund-raising and non-profits. When I read in between the lines, it was about people who are driven to raise money for various causes, some quite personal to them, and they use the Boston Marathon as a vehicle for that.

[Dallen]

I agree with Paul, it is quite a stretch to say that the article is infering that the average runner can't qualify for Boston.

However, Sasha makes a good point. The average runner should be able to qualify for Boston. It just takes an above average effort.  My uncle qualified for Boston a couple years ago and he is pretty much your average runner. Too tall, too big of a build, not naturally gifted. It took about 12 tries at St George, but he eventually made it.

On the other hand, 2 of my co-workers bought their way into Boston last year. I was not very impressed. That would ruin the fun of Boston. Not much different than getting in by cheating by using EPO or taking a but to the finish.

[allie]

i have debated about the boston charity entry with many people, and i have heard some heated opinions. i am torn, because the charities raise money for good things, and we need more good things in the world. however, as already mentioned, it is quite possible for the average runner to run a qualifying time if they are willing to put in the work. i personally think that it ruins some of the magic of running in boston. you have to earn your way into the race by proving to are fit to run a given time. so you train hard and run a BQ, travel to boston all excited that you have finally made it into the marathon of marathons. then you realize there are a bunch of people there who haven't technically qualified. if they are allowed into boston without posting a qualifying time, why should they put in the effort to train for an actual BQ??
hmmmm. debate.

[adam]

I am not opposed to charities in general but I don't like the fact that certain things can cheapen the thrill and meaning of having actually qualified for the race. Should we let charity runners into the marathon trials to raise money for a cause and get more media exposure? Then again, USATF seems to think that more than 100 runners is too logistically hard so they probably wouldn't do that anyways.

I think the bigger problem with all of this is that charities use races and runners as tools to gain money, while the races and sport continue to decline. There is this belief that runners will always be there. This is not true. There is no race that is meant to strictly support the running cause or to fight obesity or for clean health through recreational activity and exercise that will bring in the masses. We don't see Run for the Cure of Laziness...we see Run for the Cure for Cancer, Diabetes, etc which may or may not have affected those we know or ourselves. This is not a bad thing, only that part of the money goes to the race directors, and part to the charity, and the rest to pay for the fees of the race. Nobody is going to sign up in masses for a race meant to increase revenue for running or exercise development or to increase competition in the local, regional, and national scheme. The Rex Lee run this last saturday brought in over 2000 students. Mary Ann's races bring in about 20, and they are significantly cheaper and run more often. These are the same local runners. What brought them out? A Cancer cause. Tradition. Everyone else is doing it. Cool T-shirt. Helping people become fit and stay fit is not considered a charitable cause. Running a race to bring in money for local running stores and keep races alive isn't a cause. Childhood obesity/diabetes isn't a significant cause, because if you can somewhat control it, or it is too hard then its not a cause. Paying a race fee, of which a proportion may or may not actually go to a charity, and "participating" is enough for the "normal" person. It is much easier to feel fulfilled when you put cancer or something in the title. I bet even putting Utah Valley Marathon for Cancer would bring in tons more charity runners, despite the fact that 100% of the proceeds already go to the childrens hospital.

[Jon Allen]

I did Boston in 04 and did not know beforehand that you could get in via the charity fundraising method.  For me, it really diminished the prestige- you always hear about how special Boston is and that it is one of the few marathons you have to qualify for, but then there are still thousands of runners who did not qualify time-wise.  I think they should do one or the other, not both. 

Are the OTQ now the only true race with a hard cut-off qualifying time?

[Paul Petersen]

Are the OTQ now the only true race with a hard cut-off qualifying time?

Ha. Take a look at the Goucher situation in the track 10K trials this past summer. He didn't run a qualifying time, but petitioned to get in.

[Greg Harris]

Are the OTQ now the only true race with a hard cut-off qualifying time?

Ha. Take a look at the Goucher situation in the track 10K trials this past summer. He didn't run a qualifying time, but petitioned to get in.

That is true, I forgot about that.  I wouldn't have let old man washed up Goucher get in.  His best days are behind him.  Now he has to live vicariously through his wife.

[Superfly]

If we ever get our marathon championship race rolling here in STG I won't be bought off. You have to qualify by time only...unless someone won't to make a deal under the table:)

[AndyBrowning]

Are the OTQ now the only true race with a hard cut-off qualifying time?

The Fukuoka International Open Marathon Championship has a 2:45 cut off time. 

[Dallen]

The Fukuoka International Open Marathon Championship has a 2:45 cut off time. 
[/quote]

We really need something like that in the USA. I'd be there.

[Sasha Pachev]

I agree with Adam. I see a lot of misdirected charity work. It is charity to fix a symptom rather than charity to attack the root cause.

[Fredrick Teichert]

Much of the money raised for charity actually pays for entry fees, administration and sometimes even travel to races. A small portion of the money donated actually gets to the charity itself and then you don't know how it's actually used. (Sorry for the negative take on this.) We should all do what we can to support good causes everywhere we can, but paying for another runner's entry fees and travel in the name of a cause doesn't feel quite right to me. Most runners who participate are probably innocent if not naive. The organizations who promote these plans seem to be "working it" a little. I don't think they understand the true culture of the sport.

[Sasha Pachev]

Being a direct thinker I have always been bothered by the idea of running to fund-raise. I like to keep things plain and simple. I like to see a bill with expenses itemized.

You run to run and you fund-raise to fund-raise. I am willing to run to promote healthy lifestyle so there will be fewer cases of cancer, but I think running a race to cure somebody else's cancer is a bit on a flaky side. I can see why somebody would want to think that. Running is hard, especially when you are out of shape. Thinking you are curing somebody else's illness for the pain you are feeling might make you more willing to deal with that pain. But that is imagination. Face the truth, nobody's cancer is cured because you run. Instead your own is prevented, possibly through your example somebody else's is prevented because they start to run. Research money is what helps bring the cure, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your running. So call it race for the prevention, not race for the cure, and donate directly to the cause.

If I want to support a cause, I donate $20 directly to that cause, not $20 to the race director who takes out some for his expenses, and then the rest to the cause. The more complex things get the more opportunity for abuse, more so when money is involved.

On a side note, if we really wanted to fund raise effectively for charities we would campaign to do something like up to $1K tax credit for donations to those. I wonder why it has not yet happened.

[Dallen]

On a side note, if we really wanted to fund raise effectively for charities we would campaign to do something like up to $1K tax credit for donations to those. I wonder why it has not yet happened.

This is a great idea, but sadly it is not going to happen any time soon. The current proposal is to reduce the current deduction for charitable gifts = more money for govenment, less money for charities. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032503103.html. It only directly affects the "rich", but the "rich" are the ones who give the most to charity.