running-forum.com Promoting running discussion.

Main Date: 03 May 2006 14:01:37 From: dwjones45 Subject: could there be hope for american distance running? WEBB NIPS RITZ IN STRONG 10,000M DEBUT By David Monti (c) 2006 Race Results Weekly, all rights reserved PALO ALTO (30-Apr) -- Alan Webb made a strong 10,000m debut here tonight, just nipping Dathan Ritzenhein in the final sprint to finish in 27:34.72, to 27:35.65. In doing so, Webb became the 8th-fastest American of all-time over the distance, and Ritzenhein --who set a personal best time-- became the 9th-fastest surpassing Bruce Bickford and Bob Kennedy. "I thought I could run with these guys," said Webb who was clearly pleased that he had won the race. "It's hard to know what would happen; it's such a long way." Gabe Jennings and Michael Aish took the field through 1000m in 2:44.7 and 2000m in 5:28.1. Both Webb and Ritzenhein followed the pace, as did Matt Gonzales who would later fade. Jennings stepped off the track after 2400m, and Aish continued to set a strong pace. The New Zealander took the contenders through 3000m in 8:15.8 and took them to 4000m in 11:02.0 before retiring. At that point, Webb and Ritzenhein began to share the lead as they had agreed before the race. "We decided to switch every 800m," Ritzenhein explained after the race. It was Webb who was on the front through 5-K in 13:48.1, but Ritz who led at 6-K in 16:34.9. The small but appreciative crowd at Stanford University was getting worked up with every lap as stadium announcer Scott Davis continued to call out the splits which showed they were well under 27:45 pace. Just slightly behind the leading pair, Anthony Famiglietti was also making an excellent 10,000m debut. He was running alone about nine seconds back at half-way, but in the second half the Olympic steeplechaser began to eat into their lead. The laps ticked by, Webb leading Ritzenhein, Ritzenhein leading Webb. Passing 8000m in 22:09.9 they were still on target, and Famiglietti had now closed the gap to only six seconds. Both athletes were beginning to fight both mental and physical fatigue. "About 6-K, I was saying, 'Man, 10 more laps!'" Webb recalled thinking. "I didn't know if I had it in me with a couple of laps to go," Ritzehein said. It was Ritzenhein who took the bell and observers punched their stopwatches to see who would be fastest over the last lap. The pair rounded the final turn together, and Webb put the hammer down in the homestraight. Ritzenhein relented, but Webb continued to sprint right through the finish line. His last lap was completed in just under 61 seconds. "It's really cool," Webb said of his debut at the distance before heading off for his cool down run. His coach, Scott Raczko, told reporters that despite his athlete's success here tonight at the 25-lap distance, he was sticking to the mile this summer. "This was always in the plan to run a 10-K," he said. "I don't know who the rumor got out there, but he's not planning to move up (to the 5000m)." Ritzenhein was pleased that he had put his 2007 World Championships qualifying time in the bank (27:49.00) and when he races the 10,000m at Hengelo on May 28, he's free to try for an even faster time. "I can take some risks," Ritzenhein said after explaining that he had dedicated tonight's race to a friend, Matthew Weber, who had died last Thursday of wounds he had suffered in a roadside attack while serving in Iraq last November. "He finally went on Thursday. I was thinking 'Matt, Matt, Matt' the whole way." Famiglietti put in the fastest final lap, clocking 59.3 seconds to finish a solid third in 27:37.74. The New Yorker was elated. "This is what it's all about," said Famiglietti who admitted that he really wanted to better Todd Williams's personal best of 27:31.34. "It's great when it all comes together in one race."   Date: 05 May 2006 05:46:51 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Perhaps so, last month alone in the Boston Marathon, U.S. men finished 3-4-5, led by Olympic silver medalist Meb Keflezighi. In the London Marathon, Olympic bronze medalist Deena Kastor won and set a women's American record of 2 hours, 19 minutes, 36 seconds. Among men at London, Khalid Khannouchi of the United States was fourth in 2:07:04. America kicked ass in April.     Date: 05 May 2006 12:49:28 From: dwjones45 Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? lanceandrew@aol.com wrote: > Perhaps so, last month alone in the Boston Marathon, U.S. men finished > 3-4-5, led by Olympic silver medalist Meb Keflezighi. In the London > Marathon, Olympic bronze medalist Deena Kastor won and set a women's > American record of 2 hours, 19 minutes, 36 seconds. Among men at > London, Khalid Khannouchi of the United States was fourth in 2:07:04. > America kicked ass in April. i think that Kastor's record should be somewhat tainted simply becasue she had 2 men(one of which she knew) pace her. i would have liked to have seen what Deena would have done time wise with out the pacers.       Date: 06 May 2006 15:52:49 From: Donovan Rebbechi Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? On 2006-05-05, dwjones45 <dwjones45@comcast.net > wrote: > lanceandrew@aol.com wrote: >> Perhaps so, last month alone in the Boston Marathon, U.S. men finished >> 3-4-5, led by Olympic silver medalist Meb Keflezighi. In the London >> Marathon, Olympic bronze medalist Deena Kastor won and set a women's >> American record of 2 hours, 19 minutes, 36 seconds. Among men at >> London, Khalid Khannouchi of the United States was fourth in 2:07:04. >> America kicked ass in April. > i think that Kastor's record should be somewhat tainted simply becasue she > had 2 men(one of which she knew) pace her. i would have liked to have seen > what Deena would have done time wise with out the pacers. That's the way records are done nowadays -- with pacers. You might not like it, but it's hardly without precedent. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/         Date: 06 May 2006 18:39:26 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? >> lanceandrew@aol.com wrote: >> i think that Kastor's record should be somewhat tainted simply >> becasue she >> had 2 men(one of which she knew) pace her. i would have liked to have >> seen >> what Deena would have done time wise with out the pacers. Were they really pacers or just men that happen to running at her pace? -DF           Date: 06 May 2006 19:22:31 From: dwjones45 Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Doug Freese wrote: >>> lanceandrew@aol.com wrote: >>> i think that Kastor's record should be somewhat tainted simply >>> becasue she >>> had 2 men(one of which she knew) pace her. i would have liked to >>> have seen >>> what Deena would have done time wise with out the pacers. > > Were they really pacers or just men that happen to running at her > pace? > -DF they were pacers (one of which she actually knew) according to the commentary on the BBC internet feed of the race.           Date: 06 May 2006 19:51:19 From: Donovan Rebbechi Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? On 2006-05-06, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote: >>> lanceandrew@aol.com wrote: >>> i think that Kastor's record should be somewhat tainted simply >>> becasue she >>> had 2 men(one of which she knew) pace her. i would have liked to have >>> seen >>> what Deena would have done time wise with out the pacers. > > Were they really pacers or just men that happen to running at her pace? They really were designated pacers. Men and women start at different times. I happen to think that t's a bit questionable to have pacers who aren't running in the same race, and pace the runner for the entire distance. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/             Date: 07 May 2006 01:24:23 From: steve common Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com > wrote: >I happen to think that t's a bit questionable to have pacers who aren't running >in the same race Makes two of us. Pacers, OK. But same race and must finish and no prizes             Date: 06 May 2006 21:54:07 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrne5pvhn.aiv.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > I happen to think that t's a bit questionable to have pacers who > aren't running > in the same race, and pace the runner for the entire distance. I use pacers in some of my races. This should really get Lance's undies in a knot. In some 100's a pacer is allowed for the last 30 miles. It's done mostly for safety as most runners are not to cognizant for those last miles and are usually run in the dark. While I do use a pacer he/she does not really pace me but keep me company. I prefer my pacer run behind me but others prefer for them to lead. Just as with discussion there are those that don't like pacers and don't use them. Good, bad or indifferent, the finish time is the finish time regardless of whether a pacer is used. Bottom line, it's up to the RD whether they are allowed and always up to the runner to use one. OTOH, I don't buy it for marathon and I'm not to thrilled when they use rabbits at track races so conceptually on both side of the fence. :) -DF               Date: 06 May 2006 22:22:35 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:54:07 GMT, "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote: >I use pacers in some of my races. "Pacer turtles" are kinda fast for the geriatric running you do.               Date: 12 May 2006 08:53:01 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? >It's very dangerous, and indeed defamatory, to claim that events are earning surplus profits or revenues on races. _ it's equally disingenuous if not ignorant to suggest they are not sans data or scrutinty. Doug is asking the newsgroup to be ignorant, "trust him", do not employ intelligence or an inquisitive mind. $24,000 in revenues, 400 runners using public land, a State Park taxpayers in Maryland pay to maintain. Note the course is two loops which cuts down significantly on managability of a race. (for example a clean up process is accelerated & cut in half, supporting aid stations is cut in half, etc....it's easy to manage a course that's a fraction of the total distance and this couse is 1/2 the total distance). In placing the economics of the "model" under the lens of scrutinty, I see no way the RD does not profit. I see nothing wrong or inappropriate with exploring hosting a trail running event from the stand point of the cost structure. In fact the State of Maryland should audit the RD and explor restructuring their fee for such events. However without examination...only the RD knows, Doug's pal.                 Date: 12 May 2006 10:26:56 From: Robert Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message news:1147449181.715806.39720@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >It's very dangerous, and indeed defamatory, to claim that events are > earning surplus profits or revenues on races. > _ > > it's equally disingenuous if not ignorant to suggest they are not sans > data or scrutinty. Doug is asking the newsgroup to be ignorant, "trust > him", do not employ intelligence or an inquisitive mind. Don't speak for the newsgroup, asshole.               Date: 12 May 2006 06:21:48 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? >There is no damage Here Doug you are saying your events leave no "footprint", none, zero. No runner has ever literally pissed in the environment, not your events Doug...there's a "no peeing in the woods" oath you all take...right? Think about the gallons of urine killing organic life you're responsible for Doug. If you really believe your events have zero impact, zero footprint, that would be very "G.W. Bush-esque" of you Doug. And yes, that is the lowest slur I can attach to a person. > I know both the RD's and believe me it's a labor of love not profit. But you can't account for the $24,000 in revenues captured by the RD....can you. Again, very GW Bush-like Doug, you want us to just "trust you".....after all..."you know them". God forbid I question "your friends". Sure Doug....whatever. HAT run was $60 a head Doug......$24,000....the RD clearly profited on the use of public lands maintained by taxpayers. Everybody with a vested interest swears their activity leaves zero footprint. I'm for independent enjoyment of our environment by runners/hikers/walkers, etc. However I am not for organizational stampeding of the environment. The environment needs recovery too. Recovering from random spread out patterns of independent use, and organizatonal stampeding in a finite window of time have 2 very different impacts on the environment. There's plenty of private land out there...you trail race RD guys should take your events there.                 Date: 12 May 2006 21:41:10 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message news:1147440108.449194.278680@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > There's plenty of private land out there...you trail race RD guys > should take your events there. Why? I love to use the lands that YOU help pay for - it keeps us bonded. I love that close feeling. Doing any running or just trolling? -DF               Date: 12 May 2006 22:52:37 From: Ken Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? In article <1147449181.715806.39720@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >, lanceandrew@aol.com writes >>It's very dangerous, and indeed defamatory, to claim that events are >earning surplus profits or revenues on races. >_ > >it's equally disingenuous if not ignorant to suggest they are not sans >data or scrutinty. Doug is asking the newsgroup to be ignorant, "trust >him", do not employ intelligence or an inquisitive mind. > The issue of maintenance payments for environmental upkeep is an entirely different one to profits. If the case for such payments is made, then it should be part of the costs of the event, not an appropriation of profits. I have no problem with anyone making profits. Moreover, I find it strange that in America of all places, profits should be a dirty word. Shouldn't you be living in North Korea? >$24,000 in revenues, 400 runners using public land, a State Park >taxpayers in Maryland pay to maintain. Note the course is two loops >which cuts down significantly on managability of a race. (for example >a clean up process is accelerated & cut in half, supporting aid >stations is cut in half, etc....it's easy to manage a course that's a >fraction of the total distance and this couse is 1/2 the total >distance). > >In placing the economics of the "model" under the lens of scrutinty, I >see no way the RD does not profit. I see nothing wrong or >inappropriate with exploring hosting a trail running event from the >stand point of the cost structure. In fact the State of Maryland >should audit the RD and explor restructuring their fee for such events. > However without examination...only the RD knows, Doug's pal. > In the UK, most events are subsidised by dint of the fact that marshals don't reclaim their personal costs. In the event last year where I helped, it cost me more to volunteer that it would have cost to run. On paper it made a small surplus, but had all the true costs been included it would have been a loss. -- Ken           Date: 08 May 2006 14:04:26 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? in all due respect steve, your reply/response is disconnected from reality, at least here in the usa. 1) increasingly runners are employing all sorts of different devices/technologies into their daily training and managing their activities with GPS precision including grades, maps etc. this includes trail runners. 2) also lots of trail races are chipped, a more expensive solution than the many simpler less costly approaches that could be implimented. Coupling (connecting) these realities imo says runners would like to know the race is as represented in distance. Using some of the technologies and services available today...it's not asking an RD to "move mountains" to figure out the distance of an event in 2006 for crissakes....I would characterize it as mandatory today. Why? It's simple, easy, and cheap to do....at least with the precision of a device or service. A neophyte with cheap technology & software can can determine their route w/GPS precision....and they do....by the thousands....ever visit and tinker with http://www.favoriterun.com/ You're basically arguing a standard achieveble for lay-folk joggers....well an RD who makes money in these events need not be held to that standard...and has no obligation to fulfill the possible expectation of lets say users of www.favoriterun.com or in other words, at least GPS accuracy.             Date: 09 May 2006 00:21:49 From: Donovan Rebbechi Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? On 2006-05-08, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote: > in all due respect steve, your reply/response is disconnected from > reality, at least here in the usa. Classic! Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/             Date: 09 May 2006 20:28:17 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message news:1147122266.356647.150050@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > in all due respect steve, your reply/response is disconnected from > reality, at least here in the usa. > > 1) increasingly runners are employing all sorts of different > devices/technologies into their daily training and managing their > activities with GPS precision including grades, maps etc. this > includes > trail runners. Wanna bet it an teensy weensy number? It's primarily tri geeks and road warriors the seek the perfection. The few trail folks that I know that use GPS is to make sure the get the proper elevation in training for the race. > 2) also lots of trail races are chipped, a more expensive solution > than > the many simpler less costly approaches that could be implimented. A trail race with chips? The RD gets stuck for all lost chips - I'll bet there are few trail races that use chips. I about 20 a year and have never seen a chip. In case your not up to date these chips are about $35 a pop. > Coupling (connecting) these realities imo says runners would like to > know the race is as represented in distance. Using some of the > technologies and services available today...it's not asking an RD to > "move mountains" to figure out the distance of an event in 2006 for > crissakes....I would characterize it as mandatory today. Why? It's > simple, easy, and cheap to do....at least with the precision of a > device or service. Lance, the distances are relatively close, any more energy is a waste of time. It seems you are the only one that cares. Those of us that actually do them, to borrow from Steve Common, don't give a flying fart. Ya know, If the inexactness keeps you out of the race - I hope they never measure them. :) > You're basically arguing a standard achieveble for lay-folk > joggers....well an RD who makes money in these events need not be held A trail RD that makes money? You must be kidding. Maybe a race like Western States but let me assure you most trail RD's are thrilled to break even and more often lose money. They put these races on for the love of sport not to buy a new BMW. This comes up on the big list from time to time and you would make more money collecting deposit bottles and cans from the side of the road then a race. The more you cover this topic the more you show how little you know. Stick to 5 and 10k races in Central Park. -DF           Date: 09 May 2006 14:54:39 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Doug, you accept, I question. Instead of accepting convention, why not consider possibilities? As you were wrong earlier, you are once again wrong when you say, "It seems you are the only one that cares." http://www.tusseymountainback.com/ Not a big race at all....last year I think they had about 40 relay teams and 40 individual runners.....race has only been held 5 times. This RD can manage USATF Certifying his small race....but all these other races, bigger races with longer histories can't? Why not question the quality of RD of these events? Small minded, unable to see the value of growing the product, attracting runners and sponsors, the stuff that comes with official recognition & certification by governing bodies. If you ever wonder why the IOC laughs at the Ultra community's efforts to gain acceptence and entry.....it's because of mentalities like yours Doug (de-valuing bringing structure to the sport).             Date: 10 May 2006 03:13:52 From: Donovan Rebbechi Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? On 2006-05-09, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote: > Doug, you accept, I question. Instead of accepting convention, why not > consider possibilities? > > As you were wrong earlier, you are once again wrong when you say, > "It seems you are the only one that cares." > > http://www.tusseymountainback.com/ > > Not a big race at all....last year I think they had about 40 relay > teams and 40 individual runners.....race has only been held 5 times. > > This RD can manage USATF Certifying his small race....but all these > other races, bigger races with longer histories can't? Why not Because you've got to get a bike equipped with a Jones counter around the shortest possible route for the course. Because this is a road race, it's feasible to do this. With other races, not so (hey, I dare you to bike around the escaprment course!) Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/               Date: 10 May 2006 04:23:06 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrne62mjg.c4b.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > > Because this is a road race, it's feasible to do this. With other > races, not so (hey, > I dare you to bike around the escaprment course!) I dare him to run it, regardless of the distance. -DF           Date: 10 May 2006 08:19:36 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Great discussion on the topic below. " It took us the better part of two days to complete the certification measurements for the Bizz Johnson Marathon." http://tinyurl.com/m4db8 I don't expect perfect accuracy....but at least within 300 or 400 hundred feet I would think is achievable via some GPS solution....for a Trail Marathon seems. There's someone on that site saying the The Breckenridge "Marathon", for example, is only 24.5 miles.             Date: 10 May 2006 16:05:45 From: Donovan Rebbechi Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? On 2006-05-10, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote: > > > Great discussion on the topic below. > > " It took us the better part of two days to complete the certification > measurements for the Bizz Johnson Marathon." > > http://tinyurl.com/m4db8 An interesting read. I think the idea of using barometric altimeters to check altitude is a good one, for example. Though it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few ultra runners have these (despite the apparent disdain for gadgets) > I don't expect perfect accuracy....but at least within 300 or 400 > hundred feet I would think is achievable via some GPS solution....for a Since you don't run these races, your expectations are hardly all that relevant. You're not going to get 300-400 feet with GPS, that's around 0.3%. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/               Date: 10 May 2006 18:38:38 From: Dot Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Donovan Rebbechi wrote: > On 2006-05-10, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote: > >> >>Great discussion on the topic below. >> >>" It took us the better part of two days to complete the certification >>measurements for the Bizz Johnson Marathon." >> >>http://tinyurl.com/m4db8 > > > An interesting read. > > I think the idea of using barometric altimeters to check altitude is a good > one, for example. Though it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few ultra runners > have these (despite the apparent disdain for gadgets) Right. As Doug said, that's the most significant tool of the gadgets. The regular GPS are too far off, at least where we are. Heck, we can barely get 3 satellites locked sometimes, let alone a 4th, although we seem to be getting better reception in the last few months (not related to tree cover). That's why I went with S625x when I upgraded - barometric altimeter - whereas, I don't think the Forerunners have that yet. Some gps receivers do. > > >>I don't expect perfect accuracy....but at least within 300 or 400 >>hundred feet I would think is achievable via some GPS solution....for a > > > Since you don't run these races, your expectations are hardly all that > relevant. You're not going to get 300-400 feet with GPS, that's around 0.3%. > maybe for a 5k. There's various grades of GPS devices, and the expensive ones can get to within 1 cm. A mine company might save up all their detailed surveying to do in a 1-wk time frame and rent the equipment - it's that level of expense - not usually used for recreational running. Resource grade ones are better than consumer but less than the best. It also depends on having a nearby control point, whether differential correction is available or WAAS, satellite configurations that time, etc. Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope           Date: 10 May 2006 11:14:05 From: Ken Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? In article <BX68g.37310$nA3.33393@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com >, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > writes > > >> 2) also lots of trail races are chipped, a more expensive solution >> than >> the many simpler less costly approaches that could be implimented. > >A trail race with chips? The RD gets stuck for all lost chips Not true. Usually, the runner has to pay a deposit. some races require user supplied (personal) chips. >- I'll bet >there are few trail races that use chips. I about 20 a year and have >never seen a chip. In case your not up to date these chips are about >$35 a pop. The WSER uses them. Though I've lost the thread of the argument. Where chips come into this debate. Some people like chips with everything. > > >> Coupling (connecting) these realities imo says runners would like to >> know the race is as represented in distance. Using some of the >> technologies and services available today...it's not asking an RD to >> "move mountains" to figure out the distance of an event in 2006 for >> crissakes....I would characterize it as mandatory today. Why? It's >> simple, easy, and cheap to do....at least with the precision of a >> device or service. > >Lance, the distances are relatively close, any more energy is a waste of >time. It seems you are the only one that cares. Those of us that >actually do them, to borrow from Steve Common, don't give a flying fart. >Ya know, If the inexactness keeps you out of the race - I hope they >never measure them. :) Unfortunately, I don't think distances are relatively close. To give an example I did a course where the published altitude was stated at 9000 feet. It was rumoured that to retain historical continuity with previous events they had used contour counting and that had GPS been used the figure would have been 15000 feet. Now, if I'm considering doing an event with 20,000 feet, and I'm asking myself whether I can jump from what I've done previously, there is a big difference between jumping from 9000 to 20,000 than 15,000 to 20,000. There again the 20,000 itself may have been understated, and should have been 30,000. I'm not particularly a great fan of GPS, and using one near my home I discovered myself to be below sea level. But I would find it useful to know what method was used. Again with distance, in the UK a trail marathon will typically take about 30 to 40 minutes longer than a road marathon, perhaps more if not marked out (common in the UK) and I need to add on getting lost/navigation time. If I take more than 4 hours I know that either I have had a bad day, I got lost, or the course was long. In one case I know of the organiser said afterwards that the race was over 2 miles long. Now, 2+ miles, on 26, is a hefty difference, and that magnitude of error, does matter in terms of trying to understand one's performance. There is another one that I have done 5 times, and my time has been 2 good to be true - just too close to my road marathon time - and I suspect the course is a couple of miles short. Another problem I have is that some events don't publish intermediate distances and I like to calculate them myself. Particularly, where the course isn't marked out, and knowledge of intermediate distances also serves as a navigational aid. But then I find I can't get the intermediate distances to add up to the total distance. I can see that on well established, going for the last 30 years, events where everyone understands the look and feel, there would be little to be gained from measurement, but suppose you do an event for the first time, and your time is counter- intuitively fast or slow - wouldn't you just wonder. I thought Steve Common was saying that race directors (as oppose to runners) don't care a flying fart. But perhaps he should look less lovingly at his own lacklustre logorrhoea and more at logical argument. We don't know exactly what race organisers think and it seems unlikely that there is some collective thought process. As you so correctly observe most organisers are not making money, very similar situation in the UK and most would welcome greater number of runners, particularly where the where the whole purpose of the event is to raise money for some worthy cause. Back to USA where even the WSER, best known event, only managed about (I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure) 440 entrants. I don't imagine that you flew in to attend the lottery. > > >> You're basically arguing a standard achieveble for lay-folk >> joggers....well an RD who makes money in these events need not be held > >A trail RD that makes money? You must be kidding. Maybe a race like >Western States but let me assure you most trail RD's are thrilled to >break even and more often lose money. They put these races on for the >love of sport not to buy a new BMW. This comes up on the big list from >time to time and you would make more money collecting deposit bottles >and cans from the side of the road then a race. Agreed Incidentally, and getting a little off subject, there are wider issues than distance. To get a permit for a road race I have to make a number of undertakings. For instance, I have to say that there will be secure baggage store. I also have to say there will be an information desk. None of the road running undertakings apply to trail running, and folk will wax lyrical about the free spirit of trail running, and how trail runners don't want rules and (no one can ever use the word "rules" without putting it in double harness with "regulations") regulations. > >-DF > > > -- Ken             Date: 10 May 2006 12:16:56 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? "Ken" <Ken@dasha.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:G8OXLMDtzbYEFw5v@dasha.demon.co.uk... >>A trail race with chips? The RD gets stuck for all lost chips > > Not true. Usually, the runner has to pay a deposit. some races require > user supplied (personal) chips. Not in my part of the world. > Though I've lost the thread of the argument. Where chips come into > this debate. Some people like chips with everything. As most of this with Lance-e-less > Unfortunately, I don't think distances are relatively close. To give > an example I did a course where the published altitude was stated at > 9000 feet. It was rumoured that to retain historical continuity with > previous events they had used contour counting and that had GPS been > used the figure would have been 15000 feet. Now, if I'm considering > doing an event with 20,000 feet, and I'm asking myself whether I can > jump from what I've done previously, there is a big difference between > jumping from 9000 to 20,000 than 15,000 to 20,000. As I said in a previuos post the total distance within reason makes little difference and said that elevation is the most important. In your case as above I would agree that is too much variance but stiull think you are looking for way too much accuracy. > Again with distance, in the UK a trail marathon will typically take > about 30 to 40 minutes longer than a road marathon, How did you come up with this value. Does the course have to be dirt and flat and thus the only different variable is the softness? In my hunk of geography, excluding and old railroad bed, aka rail trails, trails are not graded. I can see this undulation causing a lot more than 30-40 minutes. > If I take more than 4 hours I know that either I have had a bad day, > I got lost, or the course was long. Or the course was hard? Maybe lots of elevation? No trail thons with 3-4k of gain and loss or do you avoid all but the flat so you can compre to a road race? > know of the organiser said afterwards that the race was over 2 miles > long. Now, 2+ miles, on 26, is a hefty difference, and that magnitude > of error, does matter in terms of trying to understand one's > performance. Then if I was you I would stick to road races or those that promised you some degree of perfection. > Another problem I have is that some events don't publish intermediate > distances and I like to calculate them myself. Particularly, where the > course isn't marked out, and knowledge of intermediate distances also > serves as a navigational aid. But then I find I can't get the > intermediate distances to add up to the total distance. > I can see that on well established, going for the last 30 years, > events where everyone understands the look and feel, there would be > little to be gained from measurement, but suppose you do an event for > the first time, and your time is counter- intuitively fast or slow - > wouldn't you just wonder. Not really and I have 51 ultras in the bank and have run with hundreds of like minded folks. I can't remember the last time the race distance came up unless they announced a change before hand. > > I thought Steve Common was saying that race directors (as oppose to > runners) don't care a flying fart. Good point and Steve will have to answer. I suspect it's both. I know RD's that will say hey let's do a race from podunk trail to dipdoo pass and back, look a map and say that's, um, 50k and give the race a name. We sign up and run podunk trail to dipdoo pass and back. If you try to compare that 50k with another 50k for whatever reason it's almost silly. It's like comparing wives. ;) > We don't know exactly what race organisers think and it seems unlikely > that there is some collective thought process. As you so correctly > observe most organisers are not making money, very similar situation > in the UK and most would welcome greater number of runners, > particularly where the where the whole purpose of the event is to > raise money for some worthy cause. Not true in most races at least on the East coast USA. Most races, even the infamous Western States has limits. The limit is typically the trail. Your notion of getting more runners to raise more money is road mentality not single track trail. > Back to USA where even the WSER, best known event, only managed about > (I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure) 440 entrants. I > don't imagine that you flew in to attend the lottery. I have never been intersted in to doing WS - too much hype and I don't like lotteries. It's like Boston is to marathons but at least first come first served. > Incidentally, and getting a little off subject, there are wider issues > than distance. To get a permit for a road race I have to make a number > of undertakings. For instance, I have to say that there will be secure > baggage store. I also have to say there will be an information desk. > None of the road running undertakings apply to trail running, and folk > will wax lyrical about the free spirit of trail running, and how trail > runners don't want rules and (no one can ever use the word "rules" > without putting it in double harness with "regulations") regulations. Is there a point other than you have rules to follow. Any race that has insurance has rules. A baggage store? Information desk? What no tables with linen to sip tea? Those are some strange regulations. -DF               Date: 13 May 2006 15:14:15 From: steve common Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote: >> >> I thought Steve Common was saying that race directors (as oppose to >> runners) don't care a flying fart. > >Good point and Steve will have to answer. I suspect it's both. I meant both but with the idea that the runners either know better than to bother or don't care and that the directors mostly know better. I didn't mean to imply that any old error was acceptable, I was trying to say the same thing as Robert Grumbine says, but he does it much better, lower down in the thread, ie >>>> On the other, though, neither is what anybody >>>> actually runs. So what is it you're trying to measure? Why? >>>> Why bother? I apologise for choosing language designed at least as much to annoy as to get the idea over in as few words as possible.             Date: 10 May 2006 18:31:35 From: Dot Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Ken wrote: > In article <BX68g.37310$nA3.33393@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>, Doug > Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> writes > > > Unfortunately, I don't think distances are relatively close. To give an > example I did a course where the published altitude was stated at 9000 > feet. It was rumoured that to retain historical continuity with > previous events they had used contour counting and that had GPS been > used the figure would have been 15000 feet. Now, if I'm considering > doing an event with 20,000 feet, and I'm asking myself whether I can > jump from what I've done previously, there is a big difference between > jumping from 9000 to 20,000 than 15,000 to 20,000. There again the > 20,000 itself may have been understated, and should have been 30,000. > I'm not particularly a great fan of GPS, and using one near my home I > discovered myself to be below sea level. But I would find it useful to > know what method was used. Right. Unless it's got a barometric altimeter properly set and used under relatively constant weather conditions, the GPS elevation number may be way off. Counting contours may also be off if the map of the trail isn't accurate or there's many hills smaller than the contours that fit between the contours (underestimate) or straddle contours (overestimate). I may use a gps altitude reading or a map reading, depending on my confidence in each to set my barometric altimeter for the day. > > Again with distance, in the UK a trail marathon will typically take > about 30 to 40 minutes longer than a road marathon, perhaps more if not > marked out (common in the UK) and I need to add on getting > lost/navigation time. If I take more than 4 hours I know that either I > have had a bad day, I got lost, or the course was long. In one case I > know of the organiser said afterwards that the race was over 2 miles > long. Now, 2+ miles, on 26, is a hefty difference, and that magnitude of > error, does matter in terms of trying to understand one's performance. I recognize UK may be different, but just curious as to how many people look at their "performance" across different trails with a precision of around 8% (2/26)? Unless you're considering "performance" to include simple "survivability". I know people here compare times across courses (with alleged distances / elevation up/down) to compare difficulty - slower generally meaning more challenges. I'm not sure if that's what you're considering performance, or, as I interpreted your comment, as pace (min/mi) plugged into graph or whatever. But, say, 4 hr vs 4.4 hr would seem to be almost noise for an experienced distance trail runner (which I'm not) - at least where I run. Snow / mud / wind conditions can easily account for that much variation. Yes, for an inexperienced runner like myself, that 0.4 hr is significant from a survival perspective when longest runs are about that long, but at my level, I can't accurately estimate that it might take 4.5 vs 4 hr. And I do appreciate them telling us ahead of time that an 11 mi race has become a 13 mi race, so I knew not to sign up. FWIW, my first race was a winter tri on roads, where I think the bike is advertised as 10k or 13k and was more like 13 or 15k - about 20% long (based on my bike computer, but part of the course was along section line roads = 1 mi, so I think my estimates were accurate). At +1F, that makes a really big difference for newbies - and this was supposed to be a fun family event, not an experienced racer-only event. I learned early to expect different distances from what's advertised. I also learned that Alaska races are generally operated differently from lower 48 races. There are a few certified courses in the state, but I'll bet 95% or more races (including road) are not on such routes. Some marathons are certified and a few shorter races. I suspect a couple road races use chips. But even multiple-hundred runner xc races don't even use bibs, let alone chips. (although I suspect they might change in the future considering the growth rate of trail running here) > > I can see that on well established, going for the last 30 years, events > where everyone understands the look and feel, there would be little to > be gained from measurement, but suppose you do an event for the first > time, and your time is counter- intuitively fast or slow - wouldn't you > just wonder. Maybe very briefly, but it is what it is. Our fall cross-country races are on routes unadvertised ahead of time, although they sometimes do follow official measured loops, but use a different starting point. And where a regular trail race may go through a tangle of xc ski trails at start/end, we may not know ahead of time which route is being taken. > As you so correctly > observe most organisers are not making money, very similar situation in > the UK and most would welcome greater number of runners, particularly > where the where the whole purpose of the event is to raise money for > some worthy cause. Many races are set up to raise money, but many, esp. the longer distances in Alaska, are not and some have no fees. Fees mean regulations. Although official races, whatever that means, many runners are just there for the challenge. Bigger is not always better, esp. if you start getting inexperienced runners, who may have problems along the way. Some races can accommodate them, but not all. Alaskan trail races typically don't have aid stations or no road intersections. (Su100 is exception because they can use snow machine support.) Some have volunteers at key areas, but some it's 38 mi on your own or with other runners. DNF generally means being rescued unless you can return to start. As Doug said also, trails' carrying capacity (erosion, trampling, etc) and safety concerns frequently can't support large numbers (more than a couple hundred at most). There are a few interstate-highway type trails that can and may have larger races. >Back to USA where even the WSER, best known event, > only managed about (I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure) 440 > entrants. I don't imagine that you flew in to attend the lottery. That's limited by trails, and I believe are grandfathered in to even have the event (wilderness area, I think). The wilderness area was designated after the event was already in place, so they were grandfathered in, but capped at the number of participants at the time, iirc. WSER is insanity - so large that it has a main event for the lottery itself; something like 3 volunteers for every runner. > None of the road running undertakings apply to trail running, and folk > will wax lyrical about the free spirit of trail running, and how trail > runners don't want rules and (no one can ever use the word "rules" > without putting it in double harness with "regulations") regulations. > What I've noticed in my limited experience is if you get into national / international competitions (WMRT and US National snowshoe championships were held here in 2003 and 2005, respectively), there's a bunch of regulations - not just about expectations of race course (distance, elevation, maximum slope, % snowshoe groomed, % wide trails, etc), but about housing, spectator-friendly, accessibility, etc. Kind of puts things in terms that everyone expects, but may severely limit the challenges. But local races are another matter - go by foot from A to B along designated course. The Iditarod Trail Invitational (international race also) doesn't even specify what course you take, other than checking in at checkpoints, which can vary substantially based on snow / overflow conditions. The Su100 follows more usual ultra expectations with well marked course. But as the size of the race grows and some one is always looking for a faster way, the number of rules to keep the playing field level grows also. I've not seen it, but I understand WSER has a rather substantial rule book of things you can do or not do. I'm sure the other large or highly visible races do also - Badwater comes to mind. Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope             Date: 13 May 2006 16:31:30 From: steve common Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Ken <Ken@dasha.demon.co.uk > wrote: >I thought Steve Common was saying that race directors (as oppose to >runners) don't care a flying fart. But perhaps he should look less >lovingly at his own lacklustre logorrhoea and more at logical argument. I missed this due to the weird quoting and the amount of words in the post. At least I now know what logorrhea means and that there are at least 3 logomaniacs in the thread :oP logorrhea (noun) 1) Excessive use of words 2)[esp. British] pathologically excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness that is characteristic especially of the manic phase of manic-depressive disorders My shout for a round of Anafranil.           Date: 10 May 2006 18:50:17 From: Ken Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? In article <YQk8g.53687$x97.37593@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com >, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > writes > >"Ken" <Ken@dasha.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:G8OXLMDtzbYEFw5v@dasha.demon.co.uk... >>>A trail race with chips? The RD gets stuck for all lost chips >> >> Not true. Usually, the runner has to pay a deposit. some races require >> user supplied (personal) chips. > >Not in my part of the world. > >> Though I've lost the thread of the argument. Where chips come into >> this debate. Some people like chips with everything. > >As most of this with Lance-e-less > >> Unfortunately, I don't think distances are relatively close. To give >> an example I did a course where the published altitude was stated at >> 9000 feet. It was rumoured that to retain historical continuity with >> previous events they had used contour counting and that had GPS been >> used the figure would have been 15000 feet. Now, if I'm considering >> doing an event with 20,000 feet, and I'm asking myself whether I can >> jump from what I've done previously, there is a big difference between >> jumping from 9000 to 20,000 than 15,000 to 20,000. > >As I said in a previuos post the total distance within reason makes >little difference and said that elevation is the most important. In your >case as above I would agree that is too much variance but stiull think >you are looking for way too much accuracy. But all I suggested was that organisers should do no more than state the method actually used. > > >> Again with distance, in the UK a trail marathon will typically take >> about 30 to 40 minutes longer than a road marathon, > >How did you come up with this value. Based on personal experience. Not on any published grade. >Does the course have to be dirt and >flat and thus the only different variable is the softness? No, a number of things may go to make the course harder. The ground itself may be soft, hard, stony, rutted or whatever. There may be gates, stiles, obstructions to negotiate and which may create a queue. some are not marked out or only partly marked out. Some have considerably more altitude than road. there are a number of pluses and minuses that cancel each other out. A hilly course isn't necessarily more difficult than a flat course. typically, water stations are further apart than on road races and they are not usually mile marked. Actually, I find a high degree of time consistency between very different courses, with some notable exceptions. >In my hunk >of geography, excluding and old railroad bed, aka rail trails, trails >are not graded. I can see this undulation causing a lot more than 30-40 >minutes. I can believe that. I suspect that trail courses in the USA are typically more arduous than in the UK. I only know of one "railtrail" standard marathon in the UK, and that is nearer to a road race than a typical trail race (though it did require a winching station to get the locomotive up the hill) > > >> If I take more than 4 hours I know that either I have had a bad day, >> I got lost, or the course was long. > >Or the course was hard? Maybe lots of elevation? No trail thons with >3-4k of gain and loss or do you avoid all but the flat so you can compre >to a road race? Not sure that I understand that last comment, but in a particular case I recall, yes it was hard, and there was lots of elevation, but same was true of 2 others in the same locality with similar conditions. > > >> know of the organiser said afterwards that the race was over 2 miles >> long. Now, 2+ miles, on 26, is a hefty difference, and that magnitude >> of error, does matter in terms of trying to understand one's >> performance. > >Then if I was you I would stick to road races or those that promised you >some degree of perfection. I don't like road running much, and it has its own problems anyway, but that wasn't under discussion. I suppose I could stay in bed but that has problems too. The world isn't bad, but just needs a bit of tweaking. > > >> Another problem I have is that some events don't publish intermediate >> distances and I like to calculate them myself. Particularly, where the >> course isn't marked out, and knowledge of intermediate distances also >> serves as a navigational aid. But then I find I can't get the >> intermediate distances to add up to the total distance. > > >> I can see that on well established, going for the last 30 years, >> events where everyone understands the look and feel, there would be >> little to be gained from measurement, but suppose you do an event for >> the first time, and your time is counter- intuitively fast or slow - >> wouldn't you just wonder. > >Not really and I have 51 ultras in the bank and have run with hundreds >of like minded folks. I can't remember the last time the race distance >came up unless they announced a change before hand. In the UK people tend to use the word "ultra" to mean anything longer than standard marathon. What does it mean in the USA? If you've done 51 hundreds I'm very impressed. > >> >> I thought Steve Common was saying that race directors (as oppose to >> runners) don't care a flying fart. > >Good point and Steve will have to answer. I suspect it's both. I know >RD's that will say hey let's do a race from podunk trail to dipdoo pass >and back, look a map and say that's, um, 50k and give the race a name. >We sign up and run podunk trail to dipdoo pass and back. If you try to >compare that 50k with another 50k for whatever reason it's almost silly. >It's like comparing wives. ;) > >> We don't know exactly what race organisers think and it seems unlikely >> that there is some collective thought process. As you so correctly >> observe most organisers are not making money, very similar situation >> in the UK and most would welcome greater number of runners, >> particularly where the where the whole purpose of the event is to >> raise money for some worthy cause. > >Not true in most races at least on the East coast USA. Most races, even >the infamous Western States has limits. The limit is typically the >trail. Your notion of getting more runners to raise more money is road >mentality not single track trail. I didn't say that. The race organisers contribute some or all of the proceeds to some cause. I don't actually compete in races where I'm required to raise funds, I've not heard of it being compulsory on a trail race, on a few its optional. selfish of me you might say, but I contribute to charities I'm interested in by direct debit from my own funds. The trail is likely to be more of a limit here than in the USA I would guess, but an average trail marathon would only get 100 to 150 participants I would have though. a couple of laps round a field first usually sorts out any problems. A bigger problem here potentially is a highway crossing near the start of the course. > > > >> Back to USA where even the WSER, best known event, only managed about >> (I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure) 440 entrants. I >> don't imagine that you flew in to attend the lottery. > >I have never been intersted in to doing WS - too much hype and I don't >like lotteries. It's like Boston is to marathons but at least first >come first served. > >> Incidentally, and getting a little off subject, there are wider issues >> than distance. To get a permit for a road race I have to make a number >> of undertakings. For instance, I have to say that there will be secure >> baggage store. I also have to say there will be an information desk. >> None of the road running undertakings apply to trail running, and folk >> will wax lyrical about the free spirit of trail running, and how trail >> runners don't want rules and (no one can ever use the word "rules" >> without putting it in double harness with "regulations") regulations. > >Is there a point other than you have rules to follow. Any race that has >insurance has rules. A baggage store? Information desk? What no tables >with linen to sip tea? Those are some strange regulations. Those rules are not difficult to follow and are what any competent organiser does anyway. There are a number of rules that are difficult to follow, mainly involving interference with our relationships with third parties, such as police and ambulance. But you've missed the point. I don't say, rules, yes I want lots of them. I think that measuring a road race down to the last cm when an average runner starts 100 yards behind the start line all a bit unnecessary. But we have nothing between the tight rules on road and track running, and anarchy elsewhere. > >-DF > > > > -- Ken             Date: 11 May 2006 22:33:50 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? "Ken" <Ken@dasha.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:OHDlVfJZfiYEFwrr@dasha.demon.co.uk... > But all I suggested was that organisers should do no more than state > the method actually used. I guess we really differ on this. Even if they said they used Jones counter it doesn't mean they know what they are doing. I don't find it any more useful then knowing what brand of peanut butter they served at the aid stations. If they said they used GPS would you trust it? If they said they used a topo map would you distrust it? >>In my hunk >>of geography, excluding and old railroad bed, aka rail trails, trails >>are not graded. I can see this undulation causing a lot more than >>30-40 >>minutes. > > I can believe that. I suspect that trail courses in the USA are > typically more arduous than in the UK. I would go so far as to suggest that many RD's pride themselves finding very arduous trails. The harder the better sometimes to a fault. We have a local dinky 30k that has 10,000 feet of up and down with some of the nastiest roots and rocks. It has a max of 200 runners and sells out each year. >>Then if I was you I would stick to road races or those that promised >>you >>some degree of perfection. > > I don't like road running much, and it has its own problems anyway, > but that wasn't under discussion. I suppose I could stay in bed but > that has problems too. The world isn't bad, but just needs a bit of > tweaking. What I sense is you prefer trails but want almost the same accuracy as a road race be it miles or elevation. An admirable desire but not one you will get on this side of the pond. When you see "trail" race it means very loose metrics. I find the approximate nature, within reason as discussed before, an attraction. >>Not really and I have 51 ultras in the bank and have run with hundreds >>of like minded folks. I can't remember the last time the race distance >>came up unless they announced a change before hand. > > In the UK people tend to use the word "ultra" to mean anything longer > than standard marathon. What does it mean in the USA? If you've done > 51 hundreds I'm very impressed. Only 41 in that case. The 30k I alluded to above with 10K of elevation fails to met the mileage metric of an ultra but the finish times right in line with most 50k's. Sorry only 5 100's, 22 50's and a pile of others. >>Not true in most races at least on the East coast USA. Most races, >>even >>the infamous Western States has limits. The limit is typically the >>trail. Your notion of getting more runners to raise more money is road >>mentality not single track trail. > > I didn't say that. The race organisers contribute some or all of the > proceeds to some cause. Maybe on your side of the pond but very few over here. There are only two races that I know that has any money go to a cause. Most trails races are shoestring operations where the RD hopes to break even and usually doesn't. With road races it's hard to find one that isn't to raise money. An odd dichotomy but very few for profit road races. One trail 10k that I Direct costs $2(USA). Can't seem to get the down payment on that BMW after the cost of lime, cups, drinks etc. > I don't actually compete in races where I'm required to raise funds, > I've not heard of it being compulsory on a trail race, on a few its > optional. selfish of me you might say, but I contribute to charities > I'm interested in by direct debit from my own funds. I'm with you on this. If a portion of entry goes to a cause, fine. If I have to go beg money I won't do the event. I'm shy... ;) >>Is there a point other than you have rules to follow. Any race that >>has >>insurance has rules. A baggage store? Information desk? What no >>tables >>with linen to sip tea? Those are some strange regulations. > I think that measuring a road race down to the last cm when an > average runner starts 100 yards behind the start line all a bit > unnecessary. But we have nothing between the tight rules on road and > track running, and anarchy elsewhere. I like trail anarchy. ;) -DougF               Date: 12 May 2006 01:06:31 From: Dot Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Doug Freese wrote: > "Ken" <Ken@dasha.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:OHDlVfJZfiYEFwrr@dasha.demon.co.uk... > >Your notion of getting more runners to raise more money is road >>>mentality not single track trail. >> >>I didn't say that. The race organisers contribute some or all of the >>proceeds to some cause. > > > Maybe on your side of the pond but very few over here. There are only > two races that I know that has any money go to a cause. Most trails > races are shoestring operations where the RD hopes to break even and > usually doesn't. With road races it's hard to find one that isn't to > raise money. Probably not what you're thinking of here, but I think at least a few ultras donate "excess" funds to state park or nature center or even a health charity. I'm thinking JJ100, some of those in KY (Herb H.), and probably some others. It's not peanuts, but it's not TNT level. I know many races (or clubs) give back in kind in terms of trail maintenance. If you shorten the distance, then almost all my trail races support something monetarily - university xc ski teams, nature center, local cancer patient, etc. Only one that I'm aware of (haven't run it) makes a big deal about it (national health charity), and it's very pricy, but popular. Mt. Marathon is a *huge* money generator for the city of Seward. My favorite race to date doesn't support anything and was cheapest of all, even for non-club members ($10). > > I like trail anarchy. ;) > yea! Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope           Date: 11 May 2006 01:00:53 From: anders Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? lanceandrew@aol.com kirjoitti: > " It took us the better part of two days to complete the certification > measurements for the Bizz Johnson Marathon." Yet the BJM is essentially a (graded firm smooth dirt) road race, i.e. not exactly the kind of race some trail runners have in mind when they talk about trail races. > I don't expect perfect accuracy....but at least within 300 or 400 > hundred feet I would think is achievable via some GPS solution....for a > Trail Marathon seems. There's someone on that site saying the The > Breckenridge "Marathon", for example, is only 24.5 miles. You will find that the Breckenridge Crest Mountain Marathon has been billed and advertised as being 24.5 miles long (certainly since 2001 and quite possibly since its inception). Anders           Date: 11 May 2006 17:41:02 From: Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? >Most trails races are shoestring operations where the RD hopes to break even and usually doesn't. __ a choice the RD makes >One trail 10k that I Direct costs $2(USA). would it kill you Mr. RD to charge $3 and maybe spend a few bucks on seeds to give back to the environment you trample? How about sponsoring a trash can on the trail? Oh I forgot, no trail runner ever tossed a used GU wrapper to the side....of course not. you just ran the HAT RUN: 397 entered people x $50 was it? no, i think it was $60 a person. $20,000, or more likely $24,000 revenue stream. Where's the money go Doug? The crap for the aid stations is less than $1K at Walmart (not that I've ever been inside a Walmart). Nothing's wrong with making money Doug and clearly the RD of the HATRUN knows how to. Trail races are rightfully limited capacity events however should come at a premium for the right to ogranizationally stampede on the environment. Municipalities should charge RDs a hefty fee that trickles down to the runner. We got it too good in America. Gas should be at about $7/Gal easy and your envrionmental stampedes you label "trail ultras" should be at least $100 a pop. That's about $20/hour for you to have your fun. I don't think it's right that I have to subsidize your races upstate Doug. That's right Doug, my tax dollars are really paying the real cost of your $2 races. Typical upstate freeloaders relying on the city to carrry you.             Date: 12 May 2006 11:53:26 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message news:1147394462.486672.93230@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... >>One trail 10k that I Direct costs $2(USA). > > would it kill you Mr. RD to charge $3 and maybe spend a few bucks on > seeds to give back to the environment you trample? How about > sponsoring a trash can on the trail? Oh I forgot, no trail runner > ever > tossed a used GU wrapper to the side....of course not. You're so cute but like always uninformed. It's 10k BooHoo, I provide one aid station and if it is to be warm at 6:30 pm I'll set up two. At most some folks would carry a water bottle. We run on carriage trails that the park encougages us to use. There is no damage even if it rains, tis a well drained trail. When the race is over we walk every inch of the trail to wipe out lime and we have never had a Gu or any paper from the trail. The usage permit requires that I leave the ground the way I found it and we that. The park is most interested in having more people visit the park. I give back to this park by co-directing a race in the fall that they put on. Again they charge just enough to pay for shirt, prizes, etc. There motivation is to bring more people to the park. They also have a yearly work party and some of volunteer. > you just ran the HAT RUN: 397 entered people x $50 was it? no, i > think > it was $60 a person. $20,000, or more likely $24,000 revenue stream. > > Where's the money go Doug? The crap for the aid stations is less than > $1K at Walmart (not that I've ever been inside a Walmart). Nothing's > wrong with making money Doug and clearly the RD of the HATRUN knows > how > to. To be perfectly honest I don't remember how much I paid nor do I know if they made a profit. What I do know is they have been very slow and reluctant to increase the numbers of runners so if profit is a motivation they are trying to keep it to few Lexus's. So you have done the HAT run and have seen the "crap" they offer? Come to think of it, have you ever done a trail ultra? The aid stations are every well stocked. Neither you nor I know if there is a fee for the park, how much insurance costs, the cost of tech shirts and finishers prize which varies from year to year, the cost of post race feed bag which is open to runners and friends, the cost of the trophies, did they hire a finish line, and the band plays on. I know both the RD's and believe me it's a labor of love not profit. I would not be surprised if they finished in the black and frankly hope so. I know that most races try to make a few bucks so they have seed money for the following year. From 18 years of running and helping at ultra(and road)races I doubt they are making very much money. > Trail races are rightfully limited capacity events however should come > at a premium for the right to ogranizationally stampede on the > environment. Municipalities should charge RDs a hefty fee that > trickles down to the runner. We got it too good in America. Gas > should be at about $7/Gal easy and your envrionmental stampedes you > label "trail ultras" should be at least $100 a pop. That's about > $20/hour for you to have your fun. Tee hee! By the way I pay about $150 for my 100 mile race so you're getting your wish already. That race does make a profit to support a organization that cares for handicap athletes. > I don't think it's right that I have to subsidize your races upstate > Doug. That's right Doug, my tax dollars are really paying the real > cost of your $2 races. Typical upstate freeloaders relying on > the > city to carrry you. Am I really getting into your wallet? You just made my day. And I thought that us upstate folks were supporting the NYC endless money pit. If you're supporting us, thank you. We have some beautiful trails and lots of forever wild areas. Thanks again. You should come north and see what you're paying for. Who's your daddy? -DougF           Date: 11 May 2006 19:48:09 From: Ken Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? In article <bkq8g.76574$eR6.52616@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > writes >Ken wrote: >> In article <BX68g.37310$nA3.33393@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>, Doug >>Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> writes > >I recognize UK may be different, but just curious as to how many people >look at their "performance" across different trails with a precision of >around 8% (2/26)? Unless you're considering "performance" to include >simple "survivability". I know people here compare times across courses >(with alleged distances / elevation up/down) to compare difficulty - >slower generally meaning more challenges. I'm not sure if that's what >you're considering performance, or, as I interpreted your comment, as >pace (min/mi) plugged into graph or whatever. I have a very good idea of how long it should take to run a particular length course. If my time is outside the time window I would normally understand why. I've no idea how many other runners are the same but certainly those I regularly run with are just as aware as I am. Of course runners break down into different interests based on distance, terrain, marauders/tourists etc. > >But, say, 4 hr vs 4.4 hr would seem to be almost noise for an >experienced distance trail runner (which I'm not) - at least where I >run. Snow / mud / wind conditions can easily account for that much >variation. Yes, for an inexperienced runner like myself, that 0.4 hr is >significant from a survival perspective when longest runs are about >that long, but at my level, I can't accurately estimate that it might >take 4.5 vs 4 hr. And I do appreciate them telling us ahead of time >that an 11 mi race has become a 13 mi race, so I knew not to sign up. > Weather and underfoot conditions can account for a variation but then one factors that in to the expected time. That's different from 25 minutes I can't account for. >FWIW, my first race was a winter tri on roads, where I think the bike >is advertised as 10k or 13k and was more like 13 or 15k - about 20% >long (based on my bike computer, but part of the course was along >section line roads = 1 mi, so I think my estimates were accurate). At >+1F, that makes a really big difference for newbies - and this was >supposed to be a fun family event, not an experienced racer-only event. >I learned early to expect different distances from what's advertised. I >also learned that Alaska races are generally operated differently from >lower 48 races. > >There are a few certified courses in the state, but I'll bet 95% or >more races (including road) are not on such routes. Some marathons are >certified and a few shorter races. I suspect a couple road races use >chips. But even multiple-hundred runner xc races don't even use bibs, >let alone chips. (although I suspect they might change in the future >considering the growth rate of trail running here) > > >> I can see that on well established, going for the last 30 years, >>events where everyone understands the look and feel, there would be >>little to be gained from measurement, but suppose you do an event for >>the first time, and your time is counter- intuitively fast or slow - >>wouldn't you just wonder. > >Maybe very briefly, but it is what it is. Our fall cross-country races >are on routes unadvertised ahead of time, although they sometimes do >follow official measured loops, but use a different starting point. And >where a regular trail race may go through a tangle of xc ski trails at >start/end, we may not know ahead of time which route is being taken. > > >> As you so correctly observe most organisers are not making money, >>very similar situation in the UK and most would welcome greater >>number of runners, particularly where the where the whole purpose of >>the event is to raise money for some worthy cause. > >Many races are set up to raise money, but many, esp. the longer >distances in Alaska, are not and some have no fees. Fees mean >regulations. Not sure that I understand why. >Although official races, whatever that means, many runners are just >there for the challenge. Bigger is not always better, esp. if you start >getting inexperienced runners, who may have problems along the way. >Some races can accommodate them, but not all. Alaskan trail races >typically don't have aid stations or no road intersections. (Su100 is >exception because they can use snow machine support.) Some have >volunteers at key areas, but some it's 38 mi on your own or with other >runners. DNF generally means being rescued unless you can return to start. > >As Doug said also, trails' carrying capacity (erosion, trampling, etc) >and safety concerns frequently can't support large numbers (more than a >couple hundred at most). There are a few interstate-highway type trails >that can and may have larger races. > I'm sure that's right but I got a strong impression that most USA 100's don't fill to capacity anyway. I got that impression from following the links at www.run100s.com and comparing entries with limits. But I don't know the country or the scene, and I'm willing to be corrected. I was under the impression that the WSER course, or some of it, is also host to a horse race. It requires a lot of runners do the damage of one horse. In the UK, trail races tend be held in places that are not environmentally sensitive, though there are some notable exceptions. In any event, no race organiser likes to see declining numbers. We quite often see events disappearing when entries go into decline. I suppose it's a bit like how a runner feels when performance goes into decline. > >>Back to USA where even the WSER, best known event, only managed about >>(I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure) 440 entrants. I >>don't imagine that you flew in to attend the lottery. > >That's limited by trails, and I believe are grandfathered in to even >have the event (wilderness area, I think). The wilderness area was >designated after the event was already in place, so they were >grandfathered in, but capped at the number of participants at the time, >iirc. WSER is insanity - so large that it has a main event for the >lottery itself; something like 3 volunteers for every runner. But was undersubscribed last year? > > >> None of the road running undertakings apply to trail running, and >>folk will wax lyrical about the free spirit of trail running, and how >>trail runners don't want rules and (no one can ever use the word >>"rules" without putting it in double harness with "regulations") >>regulations. >> >What I've noticed in my limited experience is if you get into national >/ international competitions (WMRT and US National snowshoe >championships were held here in 2003 and 2005, respectively), there's a >bunch of regulations - not just about expectations of race course >(distance, elevation, maximum slope, % snowshoe groomed, % wide trails, >etc), but about housing, spectator-friendly, accessibility, etc. Kind >of puts things in terms that everyone expects, but may severely limit >the challenges. > >But local races are another matter - go by foot from A to B along >designated course. The Iditarod Trail Invitational (international race >also) doesn't even specify what course you take, other than checking in >at checkpoints, which can vary substantially based on snow / overflow >conditions. The Su100 follows more usual ultra expectations with well >marked course. > >But as the size of the race grows and some one is always looking for a >faster way, the number of rules to keep the playing field level grows >also. I've not seen it, but I understand WSER has a rather substantial >rule book of things you can do or not do. Only in so far as they have service and performance requirements. I can't think of anything else. In the UK, a lot of events will make runner carry minimum equipment so one ends up with a 10 lb weight on one's back, so by UK standards light on rules. > I'm sure the other large or highly visible races do also - Badwater >comes to mind. > >Dot > -- Ken             Date: 12 May 2006 02:05:54 From: Dot Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? Ken wrote: > In article <bkq8g.76574$eR6.52616@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> writes > >> Ken wrote: >> >> >> Many races are set up to raise money, but many, esp. the longer >> distances in Alaska, are not and some have no fees. Fees mean >> regulations. > > Not sure that I understand why. Some places say you can have a group run / race without a permit if you don't charge a fee. So as soon, as you start charging fees - even accepting donations for food - you need to get a permit. The longer winter races do charge fees, but that includes lodging and meals at checkpoints (these are 350 and 1100 mi races). The shorter winter ultras (50k, 100 mi) also charge, but they provide a lot more support, including volunteer snowmachine support (probably get reimbursed for gas) compared with summer races - aid stations about every 20 mi on the 100 mi. I've either volunteered or spectated at these events and/or know the RD from a local trail club. These races are put on because the RD loves the sport or the trail. They are put on for the challenge and the love of the sport(s) and competition. They're not making money. And sometimes their "day job" is also something they value for the life style rather than the money they make. That is, they're not independently wealthy. > >> Although official races, whatever that means, many runners are just >> there for the challenge. Bigger is not always better, esp. if you >> start getting inexperienced runners, who may have problems along the >> way. Some races can accommodate them, but not all. Alaskan trail races >> typically don't have aid stations or no road intersections. (Su100 is >> exception because they can use snow machine support.) Some have >> volunteers at key areas, but some it's 38 mi on your own or with other >> runners. DNF generally means being rescued unless you can return to >> start. >> >> As Doug said also, trails' carrying capacity (erosion, trampling, etc) >> and safety concerns frequently can't support large numbers (more than >> a couple hundred at most). There are a few interstate-highway type >> trails that can and may have larger races. >> > > I'm sure that's right but I got a strong impression that most USA 100's > don't fill to capacity anyway. I got that impression from following the > links at www.run100s.com and comparing entries with limits. But I don't > know the country or the scene, and I'm willing to be corrected. I was > under the impression that the WSER course, or some of it, is also host > to a horse race. It requires a lot of runners do the damage of one horse. Right, but that's an issue of wilderness regulations in the US, I'm pretty sure. Both races were in existence before the wilderness area was designated. Competitions are not allowed in wilderness areas. They were grandfathered in since they were already in existence, but they could not exceed the size of the race at the time. Hencee, the cap. > > In the UK, trail races tend be held in places that are not > environmentally sensitive, though there are some notable exceptions. It's not so much that they are environmentally sensitive, as the soils may have low carrying capacity for numbers of feet or bike tires or whatever. Some trail bases (like bedrock) may support a lot more traffic than loess soils, like we have. Almost all soils in Alaska are considered highly erodible. Our main local trail has been closed for a month during breakup (mud season). The soils just get really mucky (ice needles thaw, then collapse - much different than summer mud) and any usage - people and esp. horses and bikes - damage the trails, at least the ones that are in there now. Better designs in the future may reduce some of this. There's nothing especially unique about the area, other than it being some of the best developed moraines remaining, but the soils themselves don't support traffic at this time of year. They haven't closed them in the past, but they're seeing if closure this year helps. In the past, we've just voluntarily run where it wasn't muddy. In some places, where there is a lot of traffic, the resource managers have "hardened" the trails (gravel, plastic geogrid, boardwalks, etc) or redesigned to accommodate the general public. Other places may use reservation system or limit certain types of use to certain trails. In > any event, no race organiser likes to see declining numbers. We quite > often see events disappearing when entries go into decline. I suppose > it's a bit like how a runner feels when performance goes into decline. For the most part, our numbers in all trail races are increasing, sometimes hugely. Many of these races are less than 25 yr old since the big influx of population didn't start occurring until late 70s. But things like Mt. Marathon (well over 75 yr) and Fall Equinox marathon (40 yr) have been around and growing. Some road races have ceased to exist. > >> >>> Back to USA where even the WSER, best known event, only managed >>> about (I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure) 440 >>> entrants. I don't imagine that you flew in to attend the lottery. >> >> >> That's limited by trails, and I believe are grandfathered in to even >> have the event (wilderness area, I think). The wilderness area was >> designated after the event was already in place, so they were >> grandfathered in, but capped at the number of participants at the >> time, iirc. WSER is insanity - so large that it has a main event for >> the lottery itself; something like 3 volunteers for every runner. > > > But was undersubscribed last year? Not sure what you mean by undersubscribed. There's about twice as many people in the lottery as get into the race, iirc. Hardrock also has a lottery. Way too Cool is first come - and you better be by your computer when the registration opens since it fills in a matter of hours, iirc (or has in the past). But yes, there are probably many 100s with empty slots because everybody wants the WSER notch in their belt, kinda like IMH. Not everybody wants to run 100 mi through AK winter. Or maybe people haven't taken the time to learn about what other ultras are open. Also keep in mind the number of 100s is growing although probably not as fast as the number of 50s. So the supply is increasing to accommodate where there may not have been races in the past, rather than filling all existing races to capacity. > >> But as the size of the race grows and some one is always looking for a >> faster way, the number of rules to keep the playing field level grows >> also. I've not seen it, but I understand WSER has a rather substantial >> rule book of things you can do or not do. > > Only in so far as they have service and performance requirements. I > can't think of anything else. In the UK, a lot of events will make > runner carry minimum equipment so one ends up with a 10 lb weight on > one's back, so by UK standards light on rules. Starting on section iv. It's not as long as I had been lead to believe, but never the less, does have some detailed restrictions. http://www.ws100.com/pguide.htm#iv One rule in particular about stashing supplies along the route is something that runners interested in a fast time are likely to do IF it is not explicitly disallowed in rules. In Alaska, some races have minimal rules other than checking in at checkpoint and not accepting outside aid while others have required equipment (including the fact that water doesn't count in the 15 lb weight required) Beyond the competitive aspects though, small races with local racers (known entitities) can get by with minimal anything else (like aid stations), more like Fat Ass races. When those races get more popular (everybody has to do an ultra now, somewhat like people flocking to marathons in the past) and less experienced people start participating, the probability of some safety issue happening increases (lost, run out of water, can't make the distance, bear attack, illness, etc). Now there's the issue of qualifications, do they need to include aid stations, or at least a safety check somewhere along the 38 mi between the 2 trail heads, etc. (It's a main thoroughfare for mtn bikers and hikers, so it's not like being in middle of bush in winter.) There's a lot of reasons why bigger is not better. Also one reason why people do trail races is frequently to get away from the mobs of road racing, so some runners will avoid any race with over xxx number of runners. Some of my races with 30 people were a lot of fun. Would I do them if there were 300 runners? Not sure. But the headaches the RD would have is a lot more with 300 than with 30 runners. Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope           Date: 12 May 2006 13:25:34 From: Ken Subject: Re: could there be hope for american distance running? In article <64S8g.50717$Fs1.3895@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > writes >Ken wrote: > >> In article >><bkq8g.76574$eR6.52616@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Dot >><dot.h@#duh?att.net> writes >> >>> Ken wrote: >>> >>> >>> Many races are set up to raise money, but many, esp. the longer >>>distances in Alaska, are not and some have no fees. Fees mean >>>regulations. >> Not sure that I understand why. > >Some places say you can have a group run / race without a permit if you >don't charge a fee. So as soon, as you start charging fees - even >accepting donations for food - you need to get a permit. > Where I live the main reason to get a permit (an athletics permit) is it is an easy way to get public liability insurance. In the event that a runner trips over a tree route and sues the organiser, he would more likely sue in tort (negligence) than on the contract. So there is no liability advantage in not charging a fee. >The longer winter races do charge fees, but that includes lodging and >meals at checkpoints (these are 350 and 1100 mi races). The shorter >winter ultras (50k, 100 mi) also charge, but they provide a lot more >support, including volunteer snowmachine support (probably get >reimbursed for gas) compared with summer races - aid stations about >every 20 mi on the 100 mi. > >I've either volunteered or spectated at these events and/or know the RD >from a local trail club. These races are put on because the RD loves >the sport or the trail. They are put on for the challenge and the love >of the sport(s) and competition. They're not making money. And >sometimes their "day job" is also something they value for the life >style rather than the money they make. That is, they're not >independently wealthy. > >> >>> Although official races, whatever that means, many runners are just >>>there for the challenge. Bigger is not always better, esp. if you >>>start getting inexperienced runners, who may have problems along the >>>way. Some races can accommodate them, but not all. Alaskan trail >>>races typically don't have aid stations or no road intersections. >>>(Su100 is exception because they can use snow machine support.) Some >>>have volunteers at key areas, but some it's 38 mi on your own or >>>with other runners. DNF generally means being rescued unless you can return to start. That can be avoided by a qualifying event. I don't mean a performance qualifier as they use in the WSER but an experience qualifier. >>> >>> As Doug said also, trails' carrying capacity (erosion, trampling, >>>etc) and safety concerns frequently can't support large numbers >>>(more than a couple hundred at most). There are a few >>>interstate-highway type trails that can and may have larger races. >>> >> I'm sure that's right but I got a strong impression that most USA >>100's don't fill to capacity anyway. I got that impression from >>following the links at www.run100s.com and comparing entries with >>limits. But I don't know the country or the scene, and I'm willing to >>be corrected. I was under the impression that the WSER course, or >>some of it, is also host to a horse race. It requires a lot of >>runners do the damage of one horse. > >Right, but that's an issue of wilderness regulations in the US, I'm >pretty sure. Both races were in existence before the wilderness area >was designated. Competitions are not allowed in wilderness areas. They >were grandfathered in since they were already in existence, but they >could not exceed the size of the race at the time. Hencee, the cap. > >> In the UK, trail races tend be held in places that are not >>environmentally sensitive, though there are some notable exceptions. > >It's not so much that they are environmentally sensitive, as the soils >may have low carrying capacity for numbers of feet or bike tires or >whatever. Some trail bases (like bedrock) may support a lot more >traffic than loess soils, like we have. Almost all soils in Alaska are >considered highly erodible. Our main local trail has been closed for a >month during breakup (mud season). The soils just get really mucky (ice >needles thaw, then collapse - much different than summer mud) and any >usage - people and esp. horses and bikes - damage the trails, at least >the ones that are in there now. Better designs in the future may reduce >some of this. There's nothing especially unique about the area, other >than it being some of the best developed moraines remaining, but the >soils themselves don't support traffic at this time of year. They >haven't closed them in the past, but they're seeing if closure this >year helps. In the past, we've just voluntarily run where it wasn't muddy. > >In some places, where there is a lot of traffic, the resource managers >have "hardened" the trails (gravel, plastic geogrid, boardwalks, etc) >or redesigned to accommodate the general public. Other places may use >reservation system or limit certain types of use to certain trails. > > >In >> any event, no race organiser likes to see declining numbers. We quite >>often see events disappearing when entries go into decline. I suppose >>it's a bit like how a runner feels when performance goes into decline. > >For the most part, our numbers in all trail races are increasing, >sometimes hugely. Many of these races are less than 25 yr old since the >big influx of population didn't start occurring until late 70s. But >things like Mt. Marathon (well over 75 yr) and Fall Equinox marathon >(40 yr) have been around and growing. Some road races have ceased to exist. > >> >>> >>>> Back to USA where even the WSER, best known event, only managed >>>>about (I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure) 440 >>>>entrants. I don't imagine that you flew in to attend the lottery. >>> >>> >>> That's limited by trails, and I believe are grandfathered in to even >>>have the event (wilderness area, I think). The wilderness area was >>>designated after the event was already in place, so they were >>>grandfathered in, but capped at the number of participants at the >>>time, iirc. WSER is insanity - so large that it has a main event for >>>the lottery itself; something like 3 volunteers for every runner. >> But was undersubscribed last year? > >Not sure what you mean by undersubscribed. There's about twice as many >people in the lottery as get into the race, iirc. Hardrock also has a >lottery. Way too Cool is first come - and you better be by your >computer when the registration opens since it fills in a matter of >hours, iirc (or has in the past). > >But yes, there are probably many 100s with empty slots because >everybody wants the WSER notch in their belt, kinda like IMH. Not >everybody wants to run 100 mi through AK winter. Or maybe people >haven't taken the time to learn about what other ultras are open. Also >keep in mind the number of 100s is growing although probably not as >fast as the number of 50s. So the supply is increasing to accommodate >where there may not have been races in the past, rather than filling >all existing races to capacity. OK, perhaps I misunderstood but I assumed 445 entries meant 55 spare slots. Personally, I prefer the cold to the heat but I did find the photos of frost bitten feet on the website a bit off putting. >> > >>> But as the size of the race grows and some one is always looking for >>>a faster way, the number of rules to keep the playing field level >>>grows also. I've not seen it, but I understand WSER has a rather >>>substantial rule book of things you can do or not do. >> Only in so far as they have service and performance requirements. I >>can't think of anything else. In the UK, a lot of events will make >>runner carry minimum equipment so one ends up with a 10 lb weight on >>one's back, so by UK standards light on rules. > >Starting on section iv. It's not as long as I had been lead to believe, >but never the less, does have some detailed restrictions. >http://www.ws100.com/pguide.htm#iv > >One rule in particular about stashing supplies along the route is >something that runners interested in a fast time are likely to do IF it >is not explicitly disallowed in rules. OK, I tend not to notice the rules that I fully support, and I fully support that one. They do have about 20 aid stations, most of which have drop bag facilities > >In Alaska, some races have minimal rules other than checking in at >checkpoint and not accepting outside aid while others have required >equipment (including the fact that water doesn't count in the 15 lb >weight required) > > >Beyond the competitive aspects though, small races with local racers >(known entitities) can get by with minimal anything else (like aid >stations), more like Fat Ass races. When those races get more popular >(everybody has to do an ultra now, somewhat like people flocking to >marathons in the past) and less experienced people start participating, >probability of some safety issue happening increases (lost, run out of >water, can't make the distance, bear attack, illness, etc). Now there's >the issue of qualifications, do they need to include aid stations, or >at least a safety check somewhere along the 38 mi between the 2 trail >heads, etc. (It's a main thoroughfare for mtn bikers and hikers, so >it's not like being in middle of bush in winter.) Question arises as to who is responsible for safety. Is it the entrant or the organiser? I hope it is the entrant. But if the organiser specifies safety equipment, then it starts to look as if he is making himself responsible. Much better to have a qualifying event, then say these are all experienced runners responsible for own safety. I find it very tedious being required to carry gear contrary to my experience (such as being forced to carry a head torch (flashlight) when I prefer a hand torch) > > >There's a lot of reasons why bigger is not better. Also one reason why >people do trail races is frequently to get away from the mobs of road >racing, so some runners will avoid any race with over xxx number of >runners. Some of my races with 30 people were a lot of fun. Would I do >them if there were 300 runners? Not sure. But the headaches the RD >would have is a lot more with 300 than with 30 runners. > Fat ass type events don't necessarily attract more experienced runners. On the contrary, notwithstanding the macho image, they tend to be favoured by people who are habitually supported by family/friends etc. For independent runners, they mean tilted playing field. >Dot > -- Ken