Fast Running Blog

I just read this article and wanted to see what some of you think.  I think it's a ripoff and a joke, but I bet there are those that think differently on this blog.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/21/BAUC13L3GQ.DTL&nopu=1

There were over 20,000 competitors in Sunday's Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco. And 24-year-old Arien O'Connell, a fifth-grade teacher from New York City, ran the fastest time of any of the women.

But she didn't win.

It doesn't get much simpler than a footrace. All it takes is a starting line, a finish line and a clock. You fire the gun and the first person to the end of the course is the winner.

However, as the marathon officials said to O'Connell - not so fast.

While O'Connell had the greatest run of her life and covered the course faster than any woman, she was told she couldn't be declared the winner because she didn't run with the "elite" group who were given a 20-minute head start.

So what could have been a lovely Cinderella story about a young woman rising above her expectations in a race that bills itself as all about empowering women turned into a strict the-rules-are-the-rules edict. That's not the image we're trying to promote here.

San Francisco has become one of those destination locations for the new breed of distance runner. Between the San Francisco Marathon in July and the Nike race - billed as the largest women's marathon in the world - over 40,000 runners will visit this year.

It is great that these events are held here, but they are also representing the city. What we are hoping is that they leave town talking about the terrific location, the great restaurants and the perfectly organized event. Instead, we look like we don't know how to operate a stopwatch.

"That's pretty weak," said Jon Hendershott, associate editor of the authoritative Track and Field News magazine, based in Mountain View. "Think of the PR they could have had with this girl coming out of nowhere. It sounds like they got caught totally off guard."

O'Connell, who describes herself as "a pretty good runner," had never managed to break three hours in five previous marathons. But as soon as she started at 7 a.m. Sunday, she knew it was her day. In fact, when she crossed the finish line 26.2 miles later, her time of 2:55:11 was so unexpectedly fast that she burst into tears.

"I ran my best time by like 12 minutes, which is insane," she said.

At the awards ceremony, the O'Connell clan looked on as the top times were announced and the "elite" female runners stepped forward to accept their trophies.

"They called out the third-place time and I thought, 'I was faster than that,' " she said. "Then they called out the second-place time and I was faster than that. And then they called out the first-place time (3:06), and I said, 'Heck, I'm faster than her first-place time, too.' "

Just to make sure, O'Connell strolled over to a results station and asked a race official to call up her time on the computer. There it was, some 11 minutes faster than the official winner.

"They were just flabbergasted," O'Connell said. "I don't think it ever crossed their minds."

No one seemed exactly sure what to do. The trophies had already been handed out and the official results announced. Now organizers seem to be hoping it will all go away.

"At this point," Nike media relations manager Tanya Lopez said Monday, "we've declared our winner."

O'Connell said some race officials actually implied she'd messed up the seeding by not declaring herself an "elite" runner.

"If you're feeling like you're going to be a leader," race producer Dan Hirsch said Monday, "you should be in the elite pack."

So this is her fault? O'Connell was just being modest.

"I'm a good, solid runner," she said. "I never considered myself elite."

Jim Estes, associate director of the long-distance running program for USA Track and Field, did his best to explain the ruling. He's had some practice with the issue. The Sunday before last, at the Chicago Marathon, a Kenyan named Wesley Korir pulled off a similar surprise, finishing fourth even though he wasn't in the elite group and started five minutes after the top runners.

In that situation, and in this one, Estes made the same ruling: It didn't count. O'Connell wasn't declared the winner and Korir didn't collect fourth-place prize money.

"The theory is that, because they had separate starts, they weren't in the same race," Estes said. "The woman who is winning the elite field doesn't have the opportunity to know she was racing someone else."

Estes admits that giving the elite runners a sizable head start may not be the best policy.

"These are things this race and other races need to look at," Estes said. "It comes down to what a race is, and who is racing who."

Nonsense, said Track and Field News' Hendershott. He said O'Connell took her best shot, ran the fastest and should have won.

"What's she supposed to do, lay back because she's not an elite runner?" he asked. "If the elites are going to lay back, that's their fault."

As for O'Connell, she's not bitter. After all, she got her best time ever, had a nice weekend in San Francisco and comes home with a story.

But she didn't win. Maybe the best way to explain that is to say it is just another case of the elites in San Francisco giving the city a bad name.

Elite start idea is a joke to begin with, as this example proves. I hate it with a passion. It is not done for the runners, if you asked most of the elite runners if they like it, they'd say no. Elite men could use a couple of "citizen rabbits" in the early miles. Elite women would love to have wind-blocking males with wide backs. Plus, true elites prove their status by running faster than the rest of the field, and part of the fun is separating yourself from the field naturally, not by virtue of a special start.

It is all done for the media reasons - they do not want "citizen" runners getting any form of publicity. Maybe it looks bad on camera when elite women are surrounded by men in the 5:1 ratio. It is rather humorous to observe those pathetic attempts at a worship of status in a naturally open and honest sport sport where the strongest one always wins, where politics and prejudice have no effect, where no pedigree matters, where success is naturally determined by how fit you are that day.

I am very happy when a supposedly non-elite runner runs an elite time and causes some controversy.  The race directors deserve a reward for their lack of common sense and respect of the competitive nature of the sport.

This race was a big joke. Are they trying to say they had an elite program? When the fastest of their "elite" runners ran a 3:06? If you have no prize money, you will not see many elite runners. Maybe a stray one that decided to do a training run or wants some media attention, or a post-collegiate marathon rookie that does not quite realize how fast he is, or some odd runner running a race of his life. But most elites will not put a marathon into their legs for a trophy. That is why 2:55 won by 11 minutes.

This is actually one of the reasons I have liked SGM so much - although there is an "elite" corral, there is not a separate start.  Gun time is still used for determining prizes, and there is both a gun time and chip time in the results.  I wholeheartedly agree that there is absolutely no point to having separate start times, and think that it is a complete joke as well.  And I certainly don't consider myself "elite" at this point.  You have to read the article to realize how much controversy this topic generated.  Runner's World also posted an article about this, and there were hundreds of comments already when I read it yesterday - most mentioning how idiotic the race director was to have done this, and congratulating Arien on a great race.  I hope that this, along with the controversy surrounding the Chicago marathon, might encourage race directors to do away with what is just a bad idea.  BTW, comments on the Runner's World article seem to have indicated that Wesley Korir actually was awarded the 4th place prize money after the fact, along with the actual recognized 4th place finisher.  Yay for Chicago marathon race directors for at least realizing they had a major controversy on their hands and doing something to defuse the situation.

Any bets on whether the woman was wearing Nike or not?  (It was the Nike Women's Marathon after all.)

New from Nike:

    * It's official: Nike has dubbed O'Connell "a winner." Here's the official statement...

      Nike is announcing today that it recognizes Arien O'Connell as a winner in last weekend’s Nike Women’s Marathon completing the full race in 2:55:11. She shattered her previous time and achieved an amazing accomplishment.

      Arien will receive the same recognition and prize, including a Tiffany & Co. trophy, the full marathon elite group winner received. Arien was unfortunately not immediately recognized as a race winner because she did not start the race with the elite running group, which is required by USATF standards. Because of their earlier start time, the runners in the elite group had no knowledge of the outstanding race Arien was running and could not adjust their strategies accordingly.

      Learning from the unique experience in this year’s race, Nike has decided today to eliminate the elite running group from future Nike Women's Marathons. Next year, all runners will run in the same group and all will be eligible to win.

I wonder if the Chicago marathon learned from their experiences as well and will be doing the same thing . . .

That's good.  See what a little bad publicity will do for you?  My thought was that if you're running with the elites and you know you're in the lead, don't hold back.  You have to realize that someone else could beat you from the "common folk" pack.  It's the same if you sprint to beat someone at the end but they chip you because they started 2 minutes and 10,000 people after you.
I am surprised though that nobody is taking the side of USATF.  I can see the argument that someone may purposely start at the back of the pack to give someone a false sense of security with their lead.  It's funny though because they hold up a ribbon for the first male and female to run through, and they may or may not be the actual winners.

I'd say it would be a very safe assumption to say that if you end up with 3:06 that day, you can adjust your strategies all you want, but you would not have run a 2:55.

And also - with the top prize being a trophy, it is reasonable to expect that the fastest declared elite would have run only 3:06. Which in and of itself is asking for trouble. A random sub-3:00 for a woman is not that rare. In that situation it would have taken just one woman that can break 20:00 in a 5 K and has done her home work to have a good race to produce an embarrassment. And they just happened to have had one in the citizen field.

Burt:

No elite in his right mind will purposefully start in the citizen group when elite start is available. You'll end up running by yourself the entire time.

Sasha,
If there wasn't an elite start would someone purposely start 30 sec. after the gun goes off and then catch up to the lead pack?  I know it's just my evil mind at work, but it could be a shady strategy for sneaking in a win.  It would be like the San Antonio Spurs who year after year resort to non-basketball techniques to win such as flopping, hip checking, and Hack-a-Shaq.  Man, I hate the Spurs!  They don't play basketball.  They play whine-a-ball.  I hope they can look back at their careers and feel good about how they whined their way to championships.  What were we talking about?

For the bigger races an elite start is perfectly defensible. I'm not sure which elites Sasha has talked to, but as one of the faster marathoners in any given race I run, I appreciate the need for an early start. Why? Because despite the best efforts of race officials who offer a leading corral for elite runners, there are always those people who sneak in anyway who have no business being there. Such people are a complete safety hazard to the faster runners. In the bigger races like Chicago, it would be nearly impossible to prevent non-elites from getting into the elite corrals, so they start them early.

Estes is right.

Now forget the separate start thing for a second and you will realize that the same principle plays out in virtually every race these days at any distance. Gun time is what determines the winners in most races not Chip time. As a race director myself, this is important for a couple of reasons. It is only fair that those competing for the top finishing spots (often times for money) know exactly who they are racing. It would not be fair for some dude to start five minutes after the gun and then be declared the winner if he had the fastest actual time. Taken to an extreme, the runner could wait out a brief thundershower and gain an advantage by waiting to run the race on his own time while everyone else had to run through it. Second, it is hard enough as it is for race officials to make sure people aren't cheating and cutting the course. Those in contention for the top spot largely self police and it's much easier for race officials to keep their eyes on a couple of lead packs than it is to watch every single runner.

In principle, these two issues are the same thing. It's about someone having the fastest time in a race but not be the one to cross the finish line first. A race is a race not a time trial.

BTW...3:06 as a winning time? What's up with that?

Sean:

I think we are talking about two different things. Elite corral where you are not allowed without credentials can be helpful in a big race, although the biggest race I've run (Richmond, 6000 runners) did not have it, and we had no problems getting up front or stumbling over anybody. They just had signs based on expected pace (or something else like that) that relied on self-enforcement.

Elite start, when elites start at a different time than the masses is bad. It does the elites no good, and it does the masses no good.  To build artificial barriers between the elites and the masses will do as much damage to our sport as removing the spectators will do to the professional ball games.

Burt:

There is no problem if elites and masses start at the same time. Then the gun time is fair, and the true winner crosses the finish line first. If somebody wants to wait 30 seconds, he just loses 30 seconds. If you start elites 20 minutes earlier, that is a whole different story. Gun time is not fair anymore. The true winner may not necessarily cross the finish line first.

You want to hear about low down rotten strategies?  In high school the first thing we would do when we went to a track or cross country meet would be to hit the bathrooms and steal all the toilet paper.  We thought it would give us an advantage if the other runners were worried about controlling their bowels and/or running with crusty cheeks.  I don't know why I confessed that.  That'll come back to haunt me.

Burt, that is why I always carried my own roll in my bag... Still do.

     I have to say that I agree with Sean for the most part.  I ran a 10k in July, which I won by a foot or two over Mike Vick.  However, he out-chipped me.  Somehow, even though we started at the same time, while standing right next to one another, and I beat him (barely) to the finish line, he out-chipped me.  Lucky for me, the race directors had the sense to not take away the win from me (they declared it an official tie).  But, what it he would have started 1 minute back, and then finished 50 seconds back.  He might have been declared the winner, and I can say that if it would have happened I would have not been happy.
     Anyhow, in regards to the San Francisco race, I think that the woman with the top time was really running a separate race.  Yes, she had the fastest time.  Yes, she probably would have won the race outright even if she ran with the "elite" runners.  But, she was running a different race.  She was the winner of the normal race.  Whomever it was that ran a 3:06 was the winner of the elite race.  It just happened that the winner of the normal race ran faster than the winner of the elite race.  I think it is good that she ended up getting the same prize as the winner of the elite race, and that Korir got the 4th place prize at Chicago.  I do not know if it would be better, or worse for the top runners to start at the same time as everyone else, or if it would be better to start them earlier.  However, any time the start time is different for one group than another, I think that they are essentially running a different race, regardless of time.

I agree with Jeff, it really is a separate race. For comparison, at a college XC invite, there is usually a team race for the varsity, and then an open race for JV runners. Once in a while, one of our JV guys would run a time that would break into the top 5 on our varsity. Kind of a shame, because that means he was probably in the wrong race, but people do pop one off once in a while like that. But they certainly wouldn't score this guy into our official results. Same course, different start times, different race. Same thing with these separate elite vs. citizen starts at some marathons. Where these marathons really messed up was not making this explicit to all of the runners. That is the fault of the race directors and their communication.

Now all that said, I agree with Sasha that separate starts are stupid. Yes, separate staging areas are necessary, but there's no (good) reason that the citizen runners can't start with the same gun as the elites (or so-called elites, as in the case of this Nike Marathon). What I love about road running is that regular Joe Sixpacks are participating in the same race as the professionals. That is unique to any other sport, and it's pretty cool.

Jeff- what happened with you and Mike Vick is the reason that most big races (marathons, especially) declare that the top 10 or so places are determined only by gun time.  That way, if someone does start a few seconds behind they can't "surprise" anyone by winning even if they don't cross the line first.  I think it is a good rule- after all, I think we would agree that the winner should be the guy who wins the sprint at the end.

Oh yeah, Jeff, I remember reading your race report. 

I see your points about if there are different start times, it's a different race.  However, I think a runner may not consider themself an elite but their goal is to run as hard as they can to place in their age group.  If they end up having a faster time than the elites, I think they should be entitled to win the same prizes as them.  But in this case, Arien beat the top placed female by 11 minutes!  So she should not only receive the same prize as the first place elite, she should be the out-right winner. 

Educate me on how you become an elite.  Do you have to make arrangements with the race officials to tell them that you usually run a marathon under a certain time?

The USATF just published something on this that I thought was insightful. Whether you agree with separate starts or not, the Nike Women's Marathon was two races. You can't separate starts by 20 minutes and consider them the same race. Paul's cross country example is a great one and it happens a lot. On our USATF Cross team we have an open team and a masters team. One of our master's guys, Tony, is actually the American Record Holder in the mile for his age group....he's in his mid 40s. At Nationals and Regionals the open and masters races are run separately. If Tony wins his race in a time that is good enough for third in the open, he doesn't get awarded third in the open. That would be ludicrous. He ran the same course but didn't run the same race. The same thing happened in the Nike race.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Special Edition Blog -- Fastest vs. First

Below is a blog by USATF Associate Director of Marketing and Long Distance Running Programs, Jim Estes, on the issue of how USATF determines the winners of road races. In two different October marathons - including most prominently the Nike Women's Marathon - the official order of finish was made a bit unclear by a disparity between order of finish and runners' "chip times."USATF has received several emails and calls from runners, fans and the media about these situations. In his blog, Estes explains the rationale for USATF and IAAF rules, sorting through the philosophies behind the nature of competition and the definition of victory.

FIRST TO THE FINISH
Perhaps the quality about competitive running that people most love is its purity: the first person to the finish wins. Normally, the first to the finish has the fastest time. Simple enough - right?

On October 19 at the Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco, that purity was muddled a bit when it was determined that the first person to the finish line wasn't actually the fastest person in the race: a woman who had started with the "pack", in an official gun start 20 minutes later, ran a time 11 minutes faster than the person who had won the "elite" race. Race officials didn't know it until the "chip times" - the times as recorded by electronic chips in each competitors' shoes - revealed it to be the case.

This raises an important philosophical question: In any given race, who should be considered the winner? Is it the first person across the line, or the fastest person in the race? How do you define victory?

In the case of the Nike Women's Marathon, there were separate gun starts. The "elite" women started first, followed by the rest of the field 20 minutes later. That means, technically speaking, the "elite" winner, Nora Colligan, and the fastest woman from the second start, Arien O'Connell, were in two separate races. They never got a chance to compete against each other.

USATF and IAAF rules about victory are clear: the first person to finish wins. In order to be able to manage their large fields, races the size of the Nike Women's Marathon and other major events have to make the best judgment call they can about starting separate groups of runners. Chips are used primarily by race directors to give "mid-pack" runners who start farther back a true sense of their finishing time, and also to prevent race fraud. In their sign-up information and race rules, event directors state that placement is determined by order of finish, not chip time.

Rules are meant to be applied to every race, regardless of circumstance. Part of the public outcry surrounding the results in San Francisco was due to the fact that Ms. O'Connell ran a time that was a full 11 minutes faster than the "elites." If Ms. O'Connell's time had been only 1 second faster than the "elite" winner, would it still have been fair to award her the victory, since Ms. Colligan never got a chance to race Ms. O'Connell? Remember, they didn't even start at the same time and weren't in the "same race." Who knows, if they had started together and raced each other, maybe Ms. Colligan would have run 12 minutes faster. Maybe Ms. O'Connell would have run even faster than her 12-minute PR. There is no way of knowing.

Let's take it a step further, to a regional race scenario, and let's put you in the middle of it. You're training for a big race in your Midwestern state, with one to two thousand runners. On race day you take a place at the front of the starting line. When the gun fires, you take off, crossing the chip-timing mat and activating your 'chip time' clock.

Over the course of the first mile, you trade a surge or two with your local rival but break away early and continue to press the pace as much as necessary to stay in front. By half way, you're a minute up, cruising, knowing that you're not going to run your fastest time but already thinking about where you're going to put your trophy. Going into the last mile you look back and notice another runner about 100 meters back. You pick your pace up as much as you can, and as you approach the finish, you check one more time to see that you've held him off. You finish 30 meters in front of second place, celebrating as you cross the line in 20:00. The local TV station captures the moment and interviews you about how it feels to win.

At the awards they announce that the runner who finished behind you started 15 seconds later - farther back in the starting-line pack - and had a chip-time of 19:57. He, not you, is declared the winner.

At the risk of sounding too 21st-century, both Ms. O'Connell and Ms. Colligan were "winners" in San Francisco, as they both received first-place prizes. One way to avoid these messy situations is not to have separate starts. Another would be for a race to clearly state its definition of "elite" and to perhaps expand the definition of the word so more runners are considered "elite" in races that have separate starts.

By working with race directors to establish "best practices" to avoid situations like the one that occurred in San Francisco, USATF can play a key role in helping to prevent these types of conundrums. What happened was no one's fault: nobody, including Ms. O'Connell, knew she was going to run as fast as she did. But we can all learn from what happened and adjust the way races conduct their starts and organize their prize structure.

Anybody who has watched an Olympic or World Championship distance race understands that distance running isn't always about who runs the fastest. It is the act of competing against other runners, responding to their tactics, and coming out the victor. We must do everything we can to ensure that the definition of victory is clear and fair. And pure.

Jim Estes is Associate Director, Marketing and Long Distance Running Programs for USA Track & Field.

Wrong! By offering no prize money, the race directions were setting themselves up for having no women in the race capable of breaking 3:00. With that kind of competition, a woman who does not consider herself elite is very likely to end up with the fastest time.  If you had shown the prize structure and the resumes of the declared elites to any agent/coach/athlete with any degree of experience in the area prior to the start of the race he would have told you the probability of the embarrassing outcome for the winner was 40 if not 60 percent, and the probability of a citizen start woman making top 3 was as high as 85%.

Had the "elites" started 10 minutes earlier instead of 20 it would have been more interesting, though.

Yes a 10 minute head start would have made for a more interesting argument.  I would have loved to see how the race directors would have defended that one.

This is the topic about how much we hate the Spurs, right?  Can I just say how happy I am that the Suns whooped them last night.  They thought they'd be funny and hack Shaq 5 seconds into the game.  I didn't think it was funny.  Now, when they lost - that was funny.

The whole idea of separate starts is bullsnot. I think it's downright retarded for a running race to not go by whomever runs the fastest. It's not the first across the line if you have separate starts. It's whomever covers the course the longest. They dropped the ball on this one and if I was Ms. O'Connell I'd file a petition. It'd be one thing if it was close, but she beat the "elite" women by 11 mintues?! And got nothing for it?! That's embarrassing

I thought it was funny.  Nothing wrong with a little humor this early in the season.  Besides Shaq did call them cowardly.  I thought it was better to respond this way than to do something dirty.  Like you said, the Sun's still won.