Why do you care about what other people do?

If qualifying for Boston is the important thing to you, then you can simply "not" sign up to get in via charity.

I have yet to meet anyone running on a charity bib that hasn't been up front about it. I even just donated to someone's charity bib this morning to make sure she could run on Monday...

And yes I am running on Monday. And no I don't give a crap that somewhere, behind me, is a wave of people who raised money to get in.

Edit to add: whenever I meet someone who says they are running Boston, instead of asking what their qualifying time is, I ask them what race they qualified at. Not because I am trying to sniff out if they are running on a charity bib, but because I am always curious. I have had a handful of people answer straight up that they are running with a charity bib - they weren't trying to hide that fact.

What someone else does "cheapens" your accomplishment only if you allow it to do so. That choice is yours.

Honestly, who else besides your wife and kids (and maybe even then) gives two fucks about you doing a marathon (yes, even Boston)?

Yeah, you're completely missing something. Namely that without the tens of millions of dollars that these runners raise every year, the city wouldn't give two shits about the event anymore.

It doesn't cheapen shit. The vast majority of the field qualifies. The charity field is a staple of the event. Heaven fuck forbid that you somehow feel slighted that this part of the field exists when it's incredibly important to the fabric of the event. Learn some history of the race and why those bibs exist.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

It bothered me for the first years of running that majority of marathon finishers in all marathons don't even like running or exercising all that much. For them it's some kind of life achievement. Or they're doing it for something, like raise money or awareness or for some ill relatives. I found it strange and counterintuitive.

But nowadays I try not to think about other people much. I cannot even reach my own personal athletic goals, I simply cannot help other people.

Wow, early responders are cranky.

I get the complaint. I think it's crappy when charity runners talk of "running Boston" and accept all those accolades from folks who now assume they're good runners. In reality they're training to finish their first marathon and managed to come up with the cash. That's shitty behavior.

However, I've rarely seen this. Once actually. And the guy was a douche anyway, so not surprising.

I've never actually seen any other charity runner bring it up, other than to do fund raising, or if they're asked why they aren't going to be at work that day. My local paper recently did a profile on a guy running Monday, and one of the first lines in the interview was him pointing out how he's not a great runner but really wanted to raise money for whatever charity and though it would be a great challenge for him. Good stuff all around actually. That's the norm, in my experience.

Long story short, OP has a good point, I think. It just doesn't happen very often.

I live in the Boston area and I know literally dozens of people who have run the marathon for charities, myself included. I also know several people who have or are capable of qualifying, and still chose to run for a charity. On behalf of all of us, get the fuck over yourself.

People get excited about running Boston because of the history and the hype that go along with the race, and that's exactly what makes it a great fundraising venue for charities. That said, I don't know anyone who has hidden behind their charity bib or consciously tried to make other think they qualified when they didn't. Are those people out there? Probably. Maybe you just met one of them. But it's pretty ignorant to make that generalization about everyone who runs Boston for a charity.

And just so you can rest easy, I've never BQ'd or suggested to anyone that I have. I ran Boston with a charity bib in 3:26. My marathon PR is 3:18 and my half PR is 1:27.

You raise a good point. Though what if you made qualifiers also raise some money? So everyone both has to qualify and raise money for a charity of their choice?

I personally don't feel slighted by the fact that there are charity runners. I just feel annoyed by people who "brag" about running Boston in a way that puts themselves and their supposed athletic accomplishment front and center, rather than the charity they're supporting. For example, the CEO I spoke with today could have said "I'm running Boston to raise awareness of XYZ issue." My reaction to that would have been, "cool, now there's a stand-up guy, working hard to support a cause."

The charities are for the kids and less fortunate people.

The dick of the day award goes to.....YOU! lol

The whole point is people choose to do the event on behalf of the charity of choice, versus other events that it is a known quantity that you must fundraise (or pay up severely) to do the event (e.g., The Prouty, which benefits the Norris Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center). The whole point is that you're making the choice to fundraise.

I frankly couldn't give two shits about how people get in to run Boston. I won't do it again until I qualify for it (my one run of it, I got in on a sponsor bib). I don't care how people talk about it because, again, whether they qualified or they fundraised (news flash - it's really, really hard to meet those minimums), they did some serious work to get there.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

If the point is "running Boston on a charity bib and not being up front about that fact is a douche move" then sure I can agree with that. That is not how I read the OP. It sounded to me like he was saying that charity runners shouldn't ever be there, and uses the one douchey guy as an example.

So basically your issue is with people who are dickbags. Not with people running Boston on a charity bib. So why this thread?

Yeah, I read it as "people who suck actually do suck", not "charity runners suck". If it's the latter, OP is a douche too.

This is a good point. Personally, I would literally never be capable of running on a charity bib. I am not good at asking people for money. No way would I ever be comfortable asking people to help me generate THAT much money. It's not a personality trait I have. But for the people that can do it? It's STILL hard work to get that much money raised.

Running my BQ, by comparison, was a cakewalk when weighed against the work I would have to do to raise enough money for a charity bib.

Well said. I qualified and ran it in 2017 and can't imagine caring that there are charity runners and how they might be portraying themselves.

I think it was both: sucky people suck, but it also seemed that he was saying charity runners suck because they took spots that could have been for qualifiers.

I may have misinterpreted as often happens with the interwebs.

So I guess you are pretty upset that the 7 time NASCAR Champ, 1/2 marathoner, triathlete is racing Boston?

The announcers have been talking about it the last few races so a LOT of people know he is racing and he has never done a marathon.

He did take 15'th place at the Daytona 13.1 before winning the clash later that day.

I think you meant to say "without the 200 Million dollars in economic stimulus to the area"

Same kind of thing happens with Kona, btw.

There is a lot doucheeness around Boston, both among qualifiers and charity runners. Look at all the peacocks strutting around with their Adidas jackets, past year shirts, etc. A large contingent of triathletes at the expo also put on their IM gear. A lot of people feel the need to glorify themselves to others.

Wow. Yeah raising money for less fortunate people is so fake.

I guess we will all take note of your fakeness for running Boston without raising a single dime for charity.

Participation in the Marathon has been on the upswing ever since the official charity program started in 1989. They go hand in hand with one another.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

I've clarified my post somewhat, but maybe that's what this all comes down to. People who suck, are sucky people. I'm just so sick of the impostor syndrome that is rife in Silicon Valley, and maybe everywhere. Just people relentlessly self-promoting by exaggerating their accomplishments.

If you're a charity runner, go ahead, brag about how hard you worked to raise so much money. That's fine. But don't try to regale me with stories about your recent 13.1 PR.

Not to say that IM doesn't attract a ton of douche bags.... but I've never met someone who has done Kona as a lottery entry and omitted the fact that they were a lottery entry. And I've met many lottery entrants. They always say things like "I got so lucky, I'd never be able to qualify. I'm so grateful I got to experience the race." Yet with Boston charity runners, I've NEVER once met someone whose told me they were a charity runner, and I'm pretty damn sure I know dozens of them but you have to pry it out of them.

Posers just suck. Okay, my rant is over. I need to go think about something happy now.

You know what's wonderful about the phrase "PR?"

It stands for personal record.

They want to brag about their 13.1 PR that barely broke 2:30? Who the fuck am I to belittle that? I mean, seriously. All of your posts in this thread thus far have belonged over here: https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...%20like%20a#p1566945

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

I don't wear my Boston jacket that often, but when I do I feel a sense of pride. Well, now I stand corrected. I'll just have to burn the jacket and never wear any kind of race gear again since it apparently marks me as a douche. I sincerely apologize if you ever saw me being a douche in my jacket, I really didn't know any better. But then again, all those charity runners (none of whom has ever misrepresented how they got in to me) are apparently douches too. So I guess I have a lot of company.

Luckily, we have people like you (who could never possibly be douches) to perform a public service and set us straight.

I wasn't familiar that 1) Boston had a large contingent of Charity Runners and 2) These runners race a ton of money.

This post, has informed me that there is some serious money being donated by a handful of runners annually from the Boston marathon. Very impressive indeed!

https://www.boston.com/...rathon-charity-teams

The 2018 charity runners raised $19.2 million, according to a July press release by the B.A.A. Combined with other fundraising, including the John Hancock Non-Profit Program, the 2018 Boston Marathon raised a total of $36.6 million.
All participating charities focus on health, fitness, and the local community, with causes ranging from Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital’s research initiatives to the Semper Fi Fund, which provides assistance to Armed Forces injured in combat after 9/11.

I’m doing it for the children (pink).

I feel that your anger is somewhat misguided. I'll offer a slightly different side of the same story.

I spent 3 years attempting to qualify, got in, ran it in 2017. Then 3 months later I was talking to a vendor of my company - it turns out they buy corporate sponsor slots at Boston. They offered me a slot, I politely declined but suggested that they offer it to another co-worker of mine who was really struggling with his running.

He took the spot, raised like $4k although he did not have to raise a penny and ran it in 2018. He had it pretty shitty during the rain/wind on the course but finished strong. He came back from Boston with a real spark - and he started training/eating right. Since then he went from a 4hr+ marathoner to a 3:30 marathoner and I feel that if he keeps at it he will BQ next year on his own.

So... yeah. Hope this makes you feel a bit more at peace with the whole thing.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

I wouldn't get too worked up. Just remember, a sub 3 marathon time is the demarcation line between runners and joggers. The rest is just details.

Once again on ST...a .1% first world problem.

---

#swimmingmatters
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
The Doctor (#12)

The shade directed at you is stronger than the shade you were throwing. I think that is an internet phenomenon.

I get it. The Instagram brag rubs me the wrong way too. But As I am sure you’ve learned here, the charity runners really are vastly a net positive

I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. The guy will probably be forever caveating his 4h50 finish time with yeah I was a charity entrant.

To give my two cents worth. I ‘qualified’ for Ironman Hawaii in 2003 through the lottery program. Ironman pb at that point in my life of 13h50 something. Went to Hawaii. Felt like a total fraud. Ended up going 16h40 - just power walked it in for the cut off. Got home. Life goes on. 15 years later and I have an Ironman pb of 10h42, so decent, but not that great. I no longer mention Hawaii anymore when fielding the what Ironmans have you done question, as I’m fed up with explaining that I too am a fraud and didn’t qualify. In many ways it’s completely taken the shine off the whole experience.

On the flip side, I went from a 230 lbs lard arse to a 170lbs triathlete in those years post Hawaii, and I guess the thing with your original question is well if it gets some otherwise sedentary heart attack waiting to happen CEO of their arses then great. Let’s face it, even those running a 2:50 marathon aren’t going to go down in the history books. Who cares about your 2:30 - you’re still 25 mins or so behind the winners. Wonder if the Kenyans wish you and other qualifiers weren’t there bragging about your 2:59 marathon?

Long and short of it is that performance is all relative. Just as you might sneer at those charity runners, so others may sneer at your achievements. As an amateur get over yourself. Outside of a select few in sporting circles, nobody cares about your running. My mum said to me after Hawaii well done dear, shall we have a roast dinner next week when you’re back? If some jock wants to showboat about Boston let him have at it as far as I’m concerned. At least he’s got off the sofa!

I bet the elites have a problem with mere “qualifiers” who go on Internet forums and proclaim their mightiness about qualifying while shitting on some population of charity runners who do douchy things. It’s all relative. This thread sucks.

Sincerely,
A 2019 charity runner

Agreed. Humans can be very self indulged. I don't mind much so long as he is honestly raising money for charity (think the opposite of a Delaware Street Nap). Does the guy the OP is referencing seem to be making it about him? Sure. If he is doing the charity bit honestly I'm okay with this all I suppose.

Someone has a signature here: "Wag More, Bark Less" and I like that. I certainly need reminded about that from time to time. If more people are being active and if more people are doing good, I'm okay with that. It doesn't take away from anything I'm doing.

It is better to light a candle than to curse in the darkness. YMMV.

Kind of like the winner of the "biggest loser" or "name your celebrity" getting a Kona slot and seeing on social media they
'raced" the Ironman World Championship?

Its business.....companies own these races and can do what ever they want. You gotta get over it.

Hmm. Thanks. I guess all the hard work I did to get under 2:20 in a half marathon is not worthwhile because it's not under 10 min/miles? Some of us just aren't gifted athletically?

30,000 people run in this event and you're all wound up about something like this? In my mind, "Running Boston" = "Running Boston". I'm pretty sure everyone has to complete the same course.

---

"The first virtue in a soldier is endurance of fatigue; courage is only the second virtue."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Right? My half PR is 2:5X, and I worked damn hard to get it under 3 hours. For 13.1! I'd be delighted to run a 10-minute mile.

I think some people here forget what rarefied air Slowtwitch is relative to the general population. For a lot of people a marathon IS their crowning athletic glory. It takes a lot of work and commitment that they may not have ever had to apply before.

I don't think that's what the OP wrote? It's great that you guys work hard to get better. What the OP seemed to have a problem with was this guy running a 2:20 and pretending he was Boston material. That is not shitting on a 2:20 performance the way I see it, though I do get that it might seem that way. Keep pushing hard. Maybe a 2019 goal could be sub 2.10 and sub 2.45?

Yes. That's right AJ. I'm glad I posted this thread, because it's changed my mind about the issue somewhat. Now that I have more information, I have come to see that allowing a some charity runners to participate is a net positive. And I think my original rant was somewhat misdirected.

And I apologize if I offended people in my original post, such as someone who has perhaps had to work very hard for a 2:20 half marathon. If you're proud of that, well, good for you, go ahead and brag about it if you so please. It might not impress me, but my PR probably doesn't impress Eliud Kipchoge either. Performance is all relative.

I still find the behavior of the guy mentioned in my original post to be highly annoying, and I still kind of have a problem with people like him. My problem is -- if you asked 100 random people on the street about the Boston Marathon entry process, I think most (perhaps 90% of them) assume the only way you can run Boston is by running a "fast" marathon (but not know the cutoff time). So when people brag about running Boston, and especially if they do it in the context of bragging about their "fastest ever" recent half marathon, people are likely to assume that the person qualified. So thus the person is taking credit for something they didn't do (i.e., qualify via their athletic gifts and hard work) via association. That annoys me. Because I kind of feel like it's lying. And I don't like when people lie to me and mislead me.

It's notable that I think a lot of Boston charity runners try to do this, or at least a lot of them that I've interacted with do. Had the person I mentioned in my OP instead focused on his charity, and how excited he was to have raised $X for XYZ Foundation and to be running in support of their cause in Boston, that would have been totally different. Because then he wouldn't have been trying to mislead me.

Anyhow, thanks to those of you who helped me refine my perspective on this topic.

As an aside, I do wonder if perhaps the best outcome, would be:
1) Requiring all entrants to raise a set amount of money for a charity of their choice
AND 2) Also qualify based on time

That seems like it would solve the "free rider" problem and perhaps increase even further the amount of money raised, and it would make participation/qualifying even harder by requiring both a certain amount of raw athletic potential and interpersonal money-raising capability.

Since I read the entire context of the original post.....I can kinda see it. I have no idea what that guy's knowledge of running is and if he's actually trying to pull one over on people. It'd be one thing if someone was a charity runner but was lying about their current run times to make it look like a normal qualifier.

If someone I knew played golf, but not a pro, told me they were going to the US Open or something.....I'd know right away they're in the Pro-AM and not give to shakes about it.

Nothing wrong with being excited and mentioning that you're training hard. I wouldn't misconstrue a charity runner talking about training hard with them making it look like they're doing the real thing.

Now......did he say "I recently qualified to go to Boston" ? If not, why can't someone be excited.

Again, I see your point of not confusing the two........but I can't infer bad intent here.

Wow, so many people who haven't even comprehended the gripe of the OP. I'm actually shocked.

He clearly says he has no problem with anyone running at any speed, and I'm sure we all agree that anyone doing any event to raise money for charity is commendable, which of course, it is. He never questions that. Yet people are questioning him basically suggesting he's said something he hasn't.

The entire point of the charity exercise is for you to choose to do it, not because you are forced to do it. That's what gives the value (and really, the consideration for entry that isn't a qualifying time). And good luck, if you're now asking 30,000 people to fundraise, to not run into massive donor fatigue issues.

It's a way to offer people who can't otherwise run this race the opportunity to do so. You still seem to be offended by that for one reason or another.

Do you also take offense with the policy allowing people who have run 25 consecutive Bostons with a qualifying time guaranteed entry from there on out? And all they have to do to remain in the club is complete the marathon every April in under six hours?

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Let me try to make life even more confusing with different random thoughts in the theme of the thread:

- western marathon running from perspective of Kenians. I read a long time ago in a memoir of a running coach about an obscure African marathon. He had a good race and clocked something like 2:45. To his surprise the finish line was already disassembled and almost everybody left. He could barely find a bottle of water. There were no amateurs running for fun there. You run professionally or you work in some inhuman conditions for miserable pay. That made me recall that any sport is a leisure activity. So even if you BQ, you're qualified just to have fun for your personal leisure, nothing more.

- running might mean something more then leisure if you are raising money for a good cause. But may be you could have raised the same money without running? Or may be spend time and effort trying to make sure the good important causes like cancer research or livelihood of veterans are fully funded from proper sources and don't require strangers asking other strangers for money. All of this can be done without running.

- on the other hand if only people who like running for the sake of running, i.e. slowtwitch or letsrun crowd were doing races, there would be no events like major marathons and hundreds of smaller nice races . We're not in a forum, we're in a circus. Show must go on, lets train for the next one.

The only thing I get out of your post is the amount of (wasted) energy spent getting angry/annoyed whatevs over someone who you *suspect* (as I don’t see you mention that this person told you directly) got in thru a charity entry. From experience, can I tell you how difficult it is to raise $ for a charity and how fulfilling it is to have done so? An accomplishment that easily surpasses any PBs that I’ve achieved, difficult races I’ve completed or injuries I’ve overcome? The charity I raised $ for supported very young children and adults who didn’t have the luck that I do in life to be able run or even walk. Perhaps you can give it a try and you might also feel the incredible sense of purpose and fulfilment from helping others in need.

Your first point is a valid one, which I hadn’t considered. But at the same time, I doubt 30K people raising money would lead to donor fatigue. It’s not like the 1M people who try to raise money by growing a mustache for Movember.

To your second point: I don’t get this logic. It’s not like Boston is the only marathon in the world. If you don’t qualify, there are thousands of marathons in the US alone every year that don’t require qualification. There are even other marathons in Boston (for people who can’t travel) such as the Fenway Park marathon and the Charles River marathon. I’ll never qualify for the Olympics, but does that mean I should be able to raise $X so I can line up behind them dressed like Peter Pan so I can “experience” the Olympics?

And my hat goes off to anyone who has run any marathon 25 years in a row, be it the Boston Marathon or Shitt’s Creek Marathon for that matter. Those people deserve their own heated, dry, not muddy as crap VIP tent as far as I’m concerned.

Donor fatigue is real. http://www.boston.com/...t_fund_raising_goal/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/12/charities-face-fund-raising-shortfalls-after-marathon-bombing/cB38NX2C9U0lIXyX8hGkqI/story.html


You're still missing the point. Boston is not, nor will it ever be, qualification only. Since the official charity program was launched, both participation and spectation of the event has grown nearly four fold. Is that solely attributable to the charity program? Of course not. But it is a significant component of that growth, while also raising significant sums of money annually. You'd need every participant to raise $1,200 to match the fundraising totals of the current program. Why are people raising so much more out of the official charity programs? Because they choose things they are passionate about to fundraise for and are able to tell a story about it. It's why the people who choose to use the Your Journey, Your Cause program with the Ironman Foundation usually well outpace the funds raised by the "official" Team IMF ones -- because there's a connection. There's a story.


Your analogy about the Olympics are simply misguided. The BAA may choose whatever method they damn well please for qualification standards and entries for sponsors, charities, the towns that the event runs through, etc. The IOC doesn't get that much luxury -- it's usually the international governing body for a particular event that will figure out how people get to go. Want to appeal to the IAAF about how to run in the Olympics if you give them enough cash and change your nationality? Go to town.


You're attempting to solve for a problem that simply does not exist. There will always be non-qualifiers at Boston.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Yeah, I get it. And like I said, I'm at peace with it now. Thanks for all including yourself for enlightening me. I'm not longer on a rampage to humiliate all charity runners.

I still kind of question the motives of some Boston charity runners though, especially from those who are from out of state. Why not raise the money for your local or nearest "big city" marathon (like Chicago, or NY, or even Disney for that matter)? Perhaps they're clinging to the more "elite" status of Boston because in the mind of most, you have to qualify to participate. I don't know, I've just met too many fakers. But I suppose it's the peril of living in Silicon Valley, where you have to "fake it till you make it" apparently.

I've never done Boston, nor ever had the desire to do it. But just for the record, from 1980 to 1986, the open men's (18-39) qualifying standard was 2:50. After that they loosened it up when they realized they could accommodate much larger fields - and presumably make a ton more money.

That was also the era when shamateurism was coming to an end and Boston was losing relevance as a premier event. Elites avoiding Boston and going to marathons paying prize money while Boston was entrenched decades of tradition and refused to pay. 1985 was an embarrassment to the race as only several elite marathoners decided to run Boston; and the overall field was shrinking as a result. To prevent the race from heading to irrelevance Boston first started paying money in 1986 - and lowered the qualifying standard to encourage more people to come. Even so, 1986 was the smallest field (only 4904 entered) since 1978.

I offer that only to put today's qualifying standards into perspective.

Tipping this thread didn't go the way the expected.

---

People fundraise because Boston is Boston, the grand-daddy of them all and where the "modern" fascination with marathons began. It's legend, and that million spectators roaring the whole way is incredible. You raise your hand going thru Framingham... "ROAR!" you run along Comm ave to slap hands with the spectators... "ROOOOAR." You make that left hand turn onto Boylston, wave your hand, and the cheering is so loud you can feel it come up through your feet and through your whole body. Hands raw from high fiving everyone you see.
Those people lining the course cheer louder for the folks at the back because they know a marathon is really hard work, no matter how you got there.
Why do people want to do Boston so badly?
Do you want to make the right turn from Hualalai onto Alii, take the little jog under the banyan tree and run towards the bright lights, high fiving every little kid along the way?
Why Boston because Why Kona.

---

Karen ST Concierge

Personally, I've got more respect for someone that put up $4k for nonprofits than someone that can run sub 3:00. I ran it today, and was completely overwhelmed by how well coordinated and put together the race is. I'm sure that is subsidized by charity runners and not by my $180 reg fee.

I don't think the OP has/had an issue with the fundraising part of Boston or Kona.
I think he has an issue w/ the Olivia Jades & Bri Tiesi Manziel of this world, misleading people on how they toe'd the race.

FWIW, I think your estimate of 90% is hugely off mark. People who care about the Boston Marathon, or Ironman, or triathlon seem to have a skewed idea of how many other people know or care anything about it. That's not to say I don't understand the premise of your post, or that I haven't also been the person w/ my undies in a twist b/c someone unknowingly didn't appreciate the difference between the local "long course" event vs 140.6. But I'm guessing 90% of the US population surely does not know "what it takes" to "run Boston". Let alone if you cast a larger net.

---

To breathe, to feel, to know I'm alive.

So a 55 year old that ran a 3:20 marathon would just be considered a jogger?

I agree. Boston Marathon is a big deal for Boston people. I think most of the charities are local. At least when they're having their Hopkinton run couple of weeks before marathon it looks like many thousands of people being brought to the starting line in buses. If you work in a big Boston company chances are there will be a couple of people running every year. And they will be doing charity. I never met anybody outside of running/tri clubs who was interested in BQ.

The year I ran Boston (qualified, fwiw) people I barely met at work came to my desk to congratulate and ask how training is going. When I was doing other marathons/ironmans nobody knew or cared.

So, my wife follows this girl on Instagram that's always posting things about "runners lifestyle" and how she loves running. She is clearly not a fast runner and i'm not questioning her love for the sport but her IG page is much more about nice looking pictures and promoting her sponsors than actually sports performance.

The other day my wife mentioned that she was training for Boston and i thought weird because, performance-wise she's not the type of runner that qualifies for Boston but my wife, that has little knowledge about the details of these races, insisted that she qualified and that she was training for Boston, posting tons of pictures and details on how she as preparing for this challenge.

I got curious and went to her IG page to check out, maybe she had much better performance than what i thought, you never now, right? So i looked onto all posts from 2018 and couldn't find absolutely nothing related to a BQ.

A few days later, my wife told me that she had posted a series of stories and in one of them she explained that it was an old friend that got her a spot(i guess via sponsorship) and it was like 2 months prior to race day so she had to hurry up with training. Among all posts i could see, this one story lost in a series others stories was the only one that told the truth about her participation in the race.

Today i looked her page and it doesn't really seem to matter how she got into running boston, she is in-route on her dream to run the 8 majors and Boston's box was checkmarked today on 4h and 31minutes.

Now, i'll repeat myself that i'm not questioning her love for the sport but , she's not 100% clear on her participation on the race and there is a lot of brag going on her IG account about it with plenty of people supporting her on this achievement.

I have zero issues with her participation on the race(can't stress that enough) however, it seems to me that she omits information just to get a wider audience on IG which i think it is wrong. One single post with the details on how she got into the race would make everything much more legit and transparent to her public.

I don't have an issue with that. If she "Ran" a 6hr 50 minutes, then yeah its BS.

---

She isn't omitting stuff for a wider audience. Her wider audience exists for the entire fit-spo industry. The broader issue tends to be undisclosed sponsor relationships for products that people are shilling.

Now, if people had written this as a critique of the evolution from the "sponsored age-grouper" to the "fit-spo 'influencer'" model, this would be a totally different ball game than trying to isolate the charity runners as somehow undeserving of participation due to not disclosing that they ran the race for a charity.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

People raising so much money for charity programs because they have to. Because the cost of one of those charity slots keeps going up every year. Because once the charities realize they have you by the short-hairs, they raise the price, just like any other capitalists. I've seen it year after year. The minimum amount goes up so high that people have to resort to holding one or more fundraising parties and facebook campaigns. Eventually some of them have to cover the difference themselves.

If you think you are going to get a Boston charity number for a mere $1200, well good luck. It's typically more on the order of $5,000 - $8,000 these days.

Aside from prestige and the general running boom, the growth of Boston is tied to money, particularly prize money. Once you bring in money, once people see the big companies and big being given out, they start demanding their slice of the pie. Towns along the way used to shut down for nothing. Then they started demanding compensation. They they started demanding a lot of compensation to allow themselves to split in half for a day. And good for them. But the effect cascades predictably. Race entry fees cost a LOT more. Expo slots cost more. Police details cost more. The price of everything goes up. Charities are just getting in on the action, like everybody else.

You misread my post.

What I was responding to was this concept that, somehow, if you forced every participant to fundraise, each person would need to raise $1,200 to match the same amount of fundraising that is currently done under the Official Charity Programs.

I also posted about the issue of donor fatigue and how it would be significantly impacted by adding 26,000 more people who were suddenly forced to fundraise.

Of course Boston has high limits. So does Kona. And it's really, really fucking hard to raise that kind of money. When we did $12,000 for the Adirondack Medical Center in 2017 for IMLP, here's how it broke down:

• The first $2,000 was easy "get the ball rolling" with friends/family donating.
• The next $1,000 we did with free random prize giveaways -- people just decided to donate in the course of entering the random giveaways.
• $2,000 from a fundraiser at a brewery
• $1,500 from a race we put on in Connecticut
• $1,000 from Kelly's proceeds from her coaching business
• $1,000 from sale of hats and shirts
• Once we got to $9,000, it then turned into the "race to put us over $10,000."
• Company match of certain donations pushed us to the final number.

But we chose to do it. The point of the Charity Program is that they choose to do so. Nobody's forcing them to accept that Marathon entry. But they're committing to doing the work.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

"Edit: Part of this rant is, I'm just sick of this Instagram-era self-promoting fakeness. Maybe it has nothing to do with Boston. If I'm completely missing something let me know."

The easy answer when they start in with the Boston schtick is just ask them how the fundraising is going. If they actually qualified it will give them an opportunity to brag about their time...or you can throw additional shade with "Super impressive for someone your size!" or more subtle "Had no idea you were a runner!"

There are the Boston Runners who FAKE Charity bibs, instead of just flat-out banditting

https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/...s-to-run-boston.html

https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2017/05/1382.html

https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/...rity-bib-boston.html

****

And then there are those who scam charities for their Boston entries

https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/...ton-charity-bib.html

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Of course they choose to do so. But most people who make that choice do so because the alternative is to not run the marathon. It's not out of altruism (though it's pretty to think so). Yes, there are plenty of people who love to raise money and do so every year. They are far from the majority. That $5,000 - 8,000 is the price of admission

It can be both, you know.

The minimum fundraising contribution for the official charities in 2019 was $7500. Didn't include the $360 registration fee for the marathon itself.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Just to clarify. Are "charity" runners and "qualified" runners running under different bibs or the same bib. So there's no distinguishing Joe the 44 year old "qualifier" and Bill the 44 year old "charity runner"?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Absolutely it can be both. But I live here, in Boston. So every year I know countless people who run on charity numbers, many in my own club. And yes, they're good people happy to be raising money for a charity. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the order of events is: 1. Runner wants to run Boston. 2. Runner is not qualified or cannot qualify. 3. Runner looks around for a charity number. The charity is step 3, not step 1

There never has been a visual difference in bibs that I've ever noticed but I'll admit I've never specifically looked for one.. I know some very fast people who also raise money every year. Yes, charity numbers typically get assigned back-of-the-corral numbers but if you have a charity number and a previous fast time, they will seed you appropriately

Good chunk of change to race, but I look at that number more in the "one time" thing for those charity runners. I kinda take it like Joe's thoughts- $7500 is the price of admission for those who want to race Boston but can't "qualify". Or I'd be very curious who actually does it multiple times in their career vs just doing it one time and moving on.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Formerly of Boston. Used to manage a couple of the City Sports locations. Ran Boston on a sponsor bib.

I know of, off the top of my head, 20 or so that do it every year. Usually for Dana Farber, but there's one that mixes it up. I would imagine that both our experiences are coloring our viewpoint, and the truth is probably closer to the middle than it is where we're talking about it.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Did you read the OP when it was first posted? What's up there now is heavily redacted.

Yes. A 3:19 Mary for NYC in the 55-60 age group would not be in the top 50 finishers in that age group. Jogger. ;)

Hmm this Instagram disease reminds me of a faker. Girl hit BQ time on a downhill course by seconds. She did not make the cut off of near 5 min. She works for big charity, so that was her way in, yet all her posts promoting she did a legit BQ.. probably because her effort wouldn't be marketable as she is group fitness instructor. Twisting the truth to make sales

what the f is your problem..

Evidently you are a runner that either has made Boston qualifying, or feels you would.

Let's be real -- Not everyone is a runner capable of qualifying for Boston -- no matter how many things they might do -- they might get their weight down, run copious amounts of hours, and do all the right things possible --- but yet based basically because of past physical fitness, genetics, or a host of possible factors -- have no chance whatsoever to ever meet a Boston qualifying standard. This doesn't even get into those people who have truly limiting physical problems or ailments.

I'm sure many of the charity runners are very proud of their times (especially from where they might have started out running). Just because they don't tout the hell out of the charity, you seem to then disrespect what they might have done to get to what they feel is an improved running ability.

If you're a Boston qualifier -- do they rip you for spending tons of time away from family to get long runs in, do they get on your case for not going out with them (because you have to be up early to run), and other limitations/oddities that have you place into your own life just so you can become a Boston qualifier.
-- Are you the best employee you could be?
-- Are you the best parent?
-- Are you the best friend (assuming you have any)?
-- Is your life predicated on one and only one thing ("Oooo look at me -- i'm a Boston qualifier")?
-- And yes -- 'do you lord it over those who aren't Boston qualifiers, but dare to do the same race --
but as charity runners??

You seem to lack some important human items -- compassion and empathy. It's obvious that you never learned the golden rule, since you also obviously can't place yourselves in the shoes of one of these people.

I pity you.

Tsunami is right ---

As much as this person and a segment of the runner community, know all about Boston qualifying times--- and make a big deal out of it;
most of the world couldn't give a rats ass about the Boston marathon.

In fact, I can guarantee that most people looking at the original rant would look at this as one a...hole, who has a stick up their backside, simply because another person hasn't bent over backwards to note that they didn't get into the race via a qualifying time. Most would see this the way I do on many issues ----

What the f..k is it any concern of yours? If you have a problem, the problem is with you.

If someone uses a fraudulent time, or method to get into the race, then you can go complain --- to the race organizers. Throwing your rant out here is obviously just trying to find that some other like-minded (I can definitely say narrow-minded) people will confirm your feelings. I'd suggest growing a pair -- and suck up the reality that not everybody (in fact I'd say most) care about your feelings on this.

I have Asperger syndrome. While I don't really like to think of myself as "disabled," yes, I lack some important human items. Much like some people lack what it takes to qualify for Boston, I lack what it takes to be a naturally compassionate and empathetic human. I like to think I have other human gifts to give to the people who are close to me.

I actually do my best not to hurt and offend people, by observing how my words and actions impact others, and learning to repeat those patterns that result in positive responses vs negative responses. I recognize that morally I want to be a "good person" -- I just lack the gifts that you have to do this easily.

Anyhow, like I said, I apologize if I offended people who worked hard to run Boston as a charity runner. I've tried to clarify my original post to reflect that it's really the "pretenders" who bother me. But maybe none of it matters. If I could delete the whole thread, I would.

I feel pretty confident that most people ( way greater than 90%) are not even aware that Boston is a qualification event, vs. just a famous marathon you sign up for and run for fun.

One of my brothers is recently retired US Army SF and the BAA used to give his group I guess what you'd call "charity" slots to Boston. A couple of years they had slots leftover and he asked me if I wanted to take one of them. I always declined. Not on some moral high ground but because the race was always the week before/same week/week after the Texas 70.3... and I'm more triathlete than I am runner. I regret not taking up the offer at least one of those years. While I've run my fair share of IM marathons, I have zero desire to run a stand alone marathon because I know I'd want to qualify for Boston if I did one and the thought of running that hard for 26.2 miles sounds about as appealing as jerking off with a fistful of glass. So doing Boston without actually putting in the qualifying effort sounds like a way better option. :-)

To address the OP and topic at hand... who gives a shit how or why people are running Boston? Posts like these or non-qualifier posts about Kona are asinine. Anyone who starts these topics comes off like a first class dickwad.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Dude sounds like a douche. Over/under on him walking the last 6 miles?

I didnt realize that it was an obligation to make sure everyone gets a chance to participate. I have no issues with people overcoming obstacles and doing their best, theres tons of of marathons and races where this can be done at. But lets not lie to ourselves, people raise tons of money to race Boston only because its Boston. If these people are so altruistic why not raise money at one of the thousands of other races? I get that some people will never be able qualify for Boston regardless of what they do. What can i say, life isnt fair and sometimes sucks. Im super thin, so no matter how much i love football and basketball i accept the fact that it isnt in my genetics to play competitevely. Fair or unfair thats how it is. Only in running and triathlon some people feel that they should be allowed to paricipate in every race. Reading some of these posts make me realize why playing dodgeball isnt allowed in many schools and why youth sports leagues dont keep score so that everyone can be a winner. Anyways, go ahead and flame away and tell me how im a dick for thinking that some things should be earned.

---

2x Deca-Ironman World Cup (10 Ironmans in 10 days), 2x Quintuple Ironman World Cup (5 Ironmans in 5 days), Ultraman, Ultra Marathoner, and I once did an Ironman.

Agreed

A month or so ago, people started coming up to me - I've been accused of being a marathoner, and people have said I do ultras - saying "Didja know Tony was running the Boston Marathon?"

I think their impression was that it was "invitation only" ... which is kinda correct, from a certain point of view

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Um, running 20, then walking 6 does NOT necessarily make one a douche

People have bad days

However, a douche may run 20, and say "That's close enough. I'll get my medal. I'm good" and walk the final 10K and be perfectly happy with it

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

i ran boston for the first time this year and used that question to generate small talk (not to vet charity vs BQ'ers). i was surprised after the first few people mentioned charity and realized maybe i should stop asking the question.

Well Said

---

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz

I don't think you're thinking straight!

Firstly: You want every runner to be required to raise money for charity just because of your fear that charity runners might steal a little of your imagined prestige?

Secondly: You think that because someone raises money for charity as part of their participation in an event they are then obliged to wave that charity's flag at every opportunity?


Sure, if someone intentionally implies they have achieved a qualifying time, that's rather dishonest. But ultimately it's just a bit pathetic and it's their own problem. I struggle to see how it undermines anyone else's achievement's or aspirations.

Stop worrying about what everyone else thinks. Run because you enjoy it, not because you think others are impressed. It's extremely unlikely anyone cares a whole lot about your athletic ability besides you.

Everything in today's universe has been made for the masses so what is the big deal?

If you have a $35,000 Tesla and someone asks "what kind of car do you drive?"....do you demand the person to say "I have a Tesla or must he state "i have the cheap $35,000 Tesla"?

If a person qualifies for the Olympics from a small country does he must state "I am only at the Olympics because no one else from my country is fast or strong?"

You sound like you have your own "EGO" problem if you say someone must state "I am a Charity Boston runner not a BQ". Does that make you feel better about your own accomplishment so people think your so great?

I have raced Kona, Boston, Spartan Championships and plenty of other big name qualifying championships and have finished in upper 10%. I used to buy tshirts and jackets (thankfully i never got an IM TATOO) to let people know how great I am so they could admire and only dream of being like me.

The more success and wisdom you have the less you care about what other people are doing and saying.

If it makes some feel good about themselves telling people they are running Boston let them raise money and run 26.2 miles. If it makes you feel better looking at their slower results and thinking they shouldn't be there go ahead but keep it yourself.

Honestly I am always impressed by anyone that can raise that kind of money to get a charity bib. As I said earlier in this thread, running a BQ, to me, is much easier than getting a bunch of people to give me money.

I am glad there is a way into this race that doesn't involve qualifying, but does involve doing something that is equally, if not more difficult.

Hey You named your own attributes -- not me.

Let's be real -- there's 2 basic types of people among those who've qualified for Boston on time...
1. Those who know that they have the genetics, time available for training, luckily no physical problems, etc.
When you meet one of this group -- they bend over backwards to say how thankful they are, they note they have family/friends/group runners/etc that help them out, and that 'their' accomplishment was possible only through a lot of factors. They do most of their running, without making any kind of bit deal about it -- such that one might never know they are a runner.

then there are:
2. Those who think that having qualified for Boston makes them God's gift to the rest of us. They wear their finisher shirt not with pride, but with arrogance. They tell everyone every day what their workouts will be, and everyone knows that running is 'their' thing-- and make sure we know they are damn fast. And yes, many of them have a problem with those 'ugly' people who dare to run in the same race as them --- via any kind of exception (celebrity, charity, or otherwise).

Let's face reality -- the people in group 2 are the same people who generally have an opinion about every other person in society who doesn't meet 'their' standards for living (or whom they'd like to see in society).

"Oooo -- you couldn't play a sport as a kid because you were thin/small --- so now you'll show people since you can outrun most!". I would suggest some therapy for your past/continuing issues.