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.