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