Fast Running Blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (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.

Yes, this is really bad news for NGOs. It's as though Obama is try to put them out of business and replace them with...well, you know.

I agree with Sasha - "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."

I have not yet qualified for Boston, but I hope to eventually qualify.  I would never use fundraising as a vehicle to get in.  In my mind it is comparable to bribing someone to let me in before I have earned the right.

I hate it when my friends, co-workers, and family send me an email asking me to donate to a cause so that they can participate in an event.  I don't even buy girl scout cookies anymore.  I'll give $10 to the troop before I buy $10 worth of cookies that I don't want.  That way the troop gets 100% of the money.  If I want to give to a charity, I give the money directly to the charity.

I don't know bout y'all, but if the gubmint says I can only deduct 28 cents on the dollar then the Special Olympics can pound sand. ;)

I guess I'm alone on this one.  My cousin ran a marathon for charity after the death of her sister.  It was a meaningful event and gave her a tangible experience to accompany a gift in honor of a loved one.  Most of the "charity" folks don't really interfere with the serious runners anyway...most of them are in the first couple corrals.  Me, I'd only participate on a BQ, yet have no hostility towards the extras. 

I think running for charity is a good thing. It gets a few people to run who wouldn't and also gets some people to donate to charity when they wouldn't otherwise.
Whenever someone tells me that they have run the Boston I'm still compelled to say "wow that's awesome; what marathon did you run to qualify?".

FYI: I was kidding about telling the Special Olympics to pound sand.  The charitable exemption would have to fall to at least 25 cents on the dollar for me to do that. ;)  Oh, and I agree with Dave and Mike.  Anything that encourages charitable conduct and has the ancillary effect of pizzing off those who favor exclusion v. inclusion is a good thing in my book.   ;D 

So, what is the problem with encouraging people to run and supporting a good cause?   

I'm still not sure. But it sure gets peoples' goat.

I don't have any problem with it.  Race for the Cure, etc- great!  My only issue is letting people in the "elite" Boston marathon via charity rather than qualifying time.  I think it diminishes the prestige.

The problem is in the waste and misrepresentation. On the surface it looks like they ran to support the cause. In reality a significant portion of the money donated did not go to the cause. Additionally, running in the whole process was more of a red herring. The end purpose is more efficiently reached without the involvement of running. I would prefer if running was valued for what it is rather than for what it is not.

Why is running so important?

Curious topic.  Running is really just exercise at the end of the day.

Im not sure that charites sponsored by Race for the Cure or any other "charitable" runs would raise nearly as much money if they just had to rely on people deciding to mail in a donation.  I have no problem with charitable runs.  Also, these runs typically get people running that normally do not, and maybe they'll get bitten by the bug. 

Exactly.


Exactly...again. These charities know what they are doing. If running was not an effective fundraiser, they would not do it. It's great to say, "If I want someone to get money, I'll just mail them a check," but most people don't operate that way. Charity running gives people goals, a cause, and a destination, all wrapped in one. Yeah, not everyone needs that, but many people do.

You need to get with the program Loschi.  Running is serious business.  Letting losers who raise money for charity crash the Boston Marathon just puts us on a slippery slope leading to the dilution of the sport and possibly anarchy.  I fear for this country when a weekend warrior like me can get into the most prestigious marathon in the world by raising a few bucks for cancer research.  How can my coworker who's been running since he fell out of his mother's womb hope to truly standout among his peers if I'm always there to remind everybody that even a schmuck w/ a half decent pair of saucony's can get in?  We need these arbitrary time limits- they're important measuring sticks.  Ultimately, if you can't use time limits then, paraphrasing Judge Smails, owner of the exclusive Bushwood Country Club, "How do you measure yourself with other [runners]?"   ;)

I'm all for people getting out and running.  I'm not fast and never will be, so I am guilty of slowing down lots of marathons.  I also believe in giving to charities - depending on my cause of the day, I'll support breast cancer research, leukemia research, burn victims, alzheimers research, the red cross, the local homeless shelter, food bank, and the spca.  But I also want to know where my money goes. 

I guess I have become cynical after being hit up continuously for "good causes."  I also have a problem with donating to a friend's destination marathon - a lot of the money being raised for these running events pays for the entry to the marathon, airfare, etc. 

Not to pick on one group, but someone has done some research about where the donations for Team In Training go:
http://www.davidhays.net/running/tnt.html

Now that I have that off of my chest, if someone raises money for a cause while they are training for a marathon, more power to them.  And if they can get their friends and family to donate, that is great.  But, certain events should be off limits.  The Boston Marathon is one of those events. 

I guess I can kind of see where eveyone's coming from, but I'm still cool with running Boston for charity.  I think if a few dollars gets to charity because someone's drooling to run in Boston- great!  It's not going to ruin my experience.    ;D

I had an acquaintance at a social event announce he was "running Boston" this year.  I only felt a little bad for him when he lost some face with all the others he was trying to impress were less impressed when they found out he didn't run the qualifying time to get in and confessed he was getting in through a business exemption.  Can you believe it, he wasn't even raising money for a charity.  :)

I did have a friend run  Boston for Charity one year - but I was okay with it because she has participated in the setup and in the Medical tents for 20+ years as an RN - so I thought it was cool that she could get back a little after giving so much. Plus - she put in a relatively credible 4:25 for a first marathon on 6 weeks ramp up to get in.

I was shocked to read in Runner's World this month that only 40% of the actual Boston runners have done a BQ time.  I guess I thought the number of charity entries and 'gimme' entries was much less. 

However, I personally will not run Boston unless I qualify because I want to say that I 'earned my spot.'

I could be wrong, but I thought the article mentioned that about 20% of the runners are for charity, and that about 40% of the people that run Boston (both qualifiers and charity runners), run a BQ time at Boston.

Matt - thank you for pointing out the error of my percentages.  You are correct.