marathons

i just read an article in the NY times online about how marathon runners are bemoaning the fact that slower runners are entering marathons and crapping on the cache of having "run a marathon", that slower runners have "disrespected the distance" and have "ruined the marathon's mystique."

oh come on.

if your worried that people won't take you for the serious runner that you are and mistake you for some fat-blob who recently decided to don a horrible fashion statement and pant and gasp for 20 some-odd miles, do not worry. we (normal people) can tell that you are serious about your running simply by your body mass index and the high percentage of spandex you are wearing. sure, anyone can buy fancy running gear, but no one carries it off with a marathoners panache. we won't misidentify you, i promise.

we'll also be able to tell who you are because you'll be the first person we see coming off the marathon course, stretching your muscles and carefully heeding the gym teacher's advice of "walk it off" while we sit on a patio scarfing down a marathon of pancakes. you'll be the person that started at the crack of dawn and finished at the slightly larger crack of dawn. we, who never run marathons or half-marathons or even 1/8th marathons (the most i run is for the buss and even that less often than not) have respect for people who train by running for hours and hours and miles and miles, hitting walls and then keep on running.

but what harm is it to the world if not-so-fast runners participate? it certainly doesn't take anything away from the fast runners' time. your less than one minute mile stands strong. plus, not-so-fast runners pay good money to buy gear and join running clinics, keeping those businesses in ... well, business. not everyone has sponsorship from gatorade.

the main consideration shouldn't be the speed of the runner, but whether they will pass out and die on the course. i shouldn't run a marathon because i might just keel over and die in a pool of my own vomit.

the only legitimate concern i see for having slower runners in a marathon is the cost to the organizers of keeping the course open longer. organizers have to pay all sorts of costs to the city for security, etc. not to mention that 20 some-odd miles can be a huge swath of the city to take over for a day. so maybe there could be a generous cut off time after which point the organizers of the marathon are no longer responsible for the runners safety. before you sign up to run, the organizers could let you know that after 7 hours (or so), the marathon will be over and that roads will re-open etc. at that point, slow runners will already have their t-shirts and might have to forfeit a medal of participation [or maybe you can go pick it up from marathon HQ the next day if you can prove that at some point in time you did finish the marathon]. i can't say for sure, but i believe that only a small number of slow marathon runners are doing it for the medal. most people i know who run marathons (but aren't ready for the olympics quite yet) do it as a personal challenge.

we lazy, good-for-nothings have the marathon rammed in our faces - bus re-routings, road closures, sweaty people wearing spandex hanging out in coffee-shops and restaurants after the marathon -- we suffer -- why not let the more ambitious of our class pant and gasp and clutch their sides with the best of you?

what, are you scared we might win?