When is a win a win?
At this weekend’s San Francisco’s Women’s Marathon there was some controversy of who won the race and who “should” have. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote the a piece on the story.
There were over 20,000 competitors in Sunday’s Nike Women’s Marathon in San Francisco. And 24-year-old Arien O’Connell, a fifth-grade teacher from New York City, ran the fastest time of any of the women.
But she didn’t win.
The position that the paper takes is fairly clear, but it does overlook two important issues.
It doesn’t get much simpler than a footrace. All it takes is a starting line, a finish line and a clock. You fire the gun and the first person to the end of the course is the winner.
However, as the marathon officials said to O’Connell - not so fast.
While O’Connell had the greatest run of her life and covered the course faster than any woman, she was told she couldn’t be declared the winner because she didn’t run with the “elite” group who were given a 20-minute head start.
The two issues overlooked here are:
#1, the rules. The rules clearly state that the winner is based off of Gun Time, not chip time. And
#2 she was basically in a different race. While it is sad that she covered the distance faster and didn’t “win”, the reality is that it is a different ballgame when you are at the front racing. The winning woman raced against the elite runners, having to deal with the pack, surges, moves and counter moves and ran well enough to beat all of them. It isn’t really fair to have someone come along 20 minutes later whom the lead pack didn’t even know they were competing with come away with the victory.
In this case, where there was a difference of 10 minutes or so, you might figure she would have won had she started with the correct field. But you have to look at what would happen in a much closer race. Let’s say two women go down to the wire and one outkicks the last women by one second to win. And you also have someone who starts 20 minutes later and has the benefit of knowing what time she needs to beat, and is able to pace off of a larger set of people, constantly has people ahead to try and catch, or to break the wind and draft off of and then winds up beating the other two women by a second. Do you give her the victory even though she ran a different race?
Think about the Olympics when they have qualifying heats. You need to have the fastest times in your heat to advance not the fastest time out of all the heats. This is very similar. She effectively ran in a different heat in this marathon.
It has kicked off some funny comments on different websites, ranging from:
The new Nike slogan:
Just read the rulebook, make sure you classify with the appropriate herd, wait 20 minutes if asked to, and then DO IT!”
To someone more in line with my thinking and the actual rules:
Competitive running is about competing other runners - not the stopwatch. Because of the 20 minute offset of the non-elite runners’ start, there were effectively two races run (one “real” elite race and one for recreational runners). If the woman in question wanted to compete and win the race, she should have registered in advance as an elite runner. Simple.
This also happens all the time in triathlons. The elites start in their own waves.
Perhaps the bigger question is: why didn’t the Nike race start everyone at the same time, with the elites in a corral at the front? Then O’Connell could have seeded herself properly, and would have been able to catch the lead pack and run with them.
I think I am slightly biased as I am friends with the woman, Nora Colligan, who won the elite version of the race. Nora is a former cross-country runner at Northwestern and is very competitive, so who is to say what would have happen if she’d have been battling Arien O’Connell in the field.
How should Arien have seeded herself? She didn’t consider herself elite, but she was clearly one of the fastest women on that day.
O’Connell said some race officials actually implied she’d messed up the seeding by not declaring herself an “elite” runner.
“If you’re feeling like you’re going to be a leader,” race producer Dan Hirsch said Monday, “you should be in the elite pack.”
So this is her fault? O’Connell was just being modest.
“I’m a good, solid runner,” she said. “I never considered myself elite.”
Again, I think Nike should have had the elite wave start at the same time as the recreational race and this whole issue would have been moot. What isn’t clear to me is what was the cutoff for elite status. Was it based on PR, projected finishing time, or invitation? Most races now ask you for your projecting finishing time and then seed you accordingly. At the St. George Marathon in Utah two weeks ago, they took everyone’s projected time and sorted by fastest time and declared the top 50-100 numbers as “elite”. Were any of those runners really elite? The winning time was 2:22, which while super fast, isn’t elite. It would be 1-3 miles behind the winning times at New York, Boston, Chicago, London, etc. But these were the fastest runners and were rightly lined up at the front and the race had a single starting gun.
So readers, who “won” in your opinion? Nora Colligan who finished first, or Arien O’Connell who had the fastest time of the day? Let the flames begin!
Popularity: 21% [?]
I think Nora won. You can’t win a second race and apply it to the first one.
It’s like that bullshit when Dean K ran 50 “marathons” in 50 days and wanted to join the 50 states club. He ran 30-40 long training runs and a handful of marathons.
Rules are the rules. You gotta pay to play!
Insane…whatever happened to common sense, fair play etc etc…
Arien won in my opinion. If one is trying to take the stance that mental factors are part of the race:
the winner of the elite group only pushed herself as much she needed to cross the line first. So if all elite women decided to run only sub-7’s…see where I am going?
Arien had no idea how fast she had to be to win and she did not have the special support that the elite are allowed - their own fluid replacements waiting at the water stations…
Are we trying to turn this into another subjective sport?
In ski racing only one person will win and that is the fastest skier and it does not matter what time of day, who went before or after, what the conditions are like from a nice course early in the day (advantage early starters) - to an abused slope and rutted course later in the day (disadvantage late start).
Bottom Line - The fastest runner won the race - time does not lie!
1. You are correct. The Elite runners ran a different race. Their race was EASIER. It is a lot harder to run fast back in the pack since you have to run around slower runners, jocky for position. Work through the crowd to get regular fluids from volunteers.. The Elite runners are treated like VIPs before, during and after the race.
2. You can’t just wake up and decide you want to run with the Elite runners. Typically, you must run a qualifying time in a prior race and you must be invited to be an Elite runner. She probably couldn’t register as an Elite runner.
3. The Elite runners ran a slower race on the same course on the same day. They lost and Arien won. Arien’s gun went off 20 minutes after the “elites”.
4. The race director makes the final decision. In this case the decision is clearly wrong since Arien was restricted from competing with the slower group of “elites”.
5. If I was Nora I would be ashamed to keep the prize.
it is 2 different races…
something similar in my 100km race… a guy drops after 50km with the fastest 50km time.
Same start time even…
but he was in the 100km race… not the 50km.
The other 50km guys are not racing him.
He’s in the other race.
another example…
chip timing. You start 10 minutes behind somebody else, catch your competition and then
ride them to the finish, never pass them…. and beat them… with the chip.
They never even knew you were behind them, how could they.
All races should ignore chip start times. Use only gun time, same time, for all starters.
The adjusted start time creates chaos….
there are many more such examples. You need hard constants for fair races.
just my humble opinion.
joe
Gotta disagree with you Steve. It’s harder to run by yourself in the front. In the back you have people to draft off of.
Joe P, nailed it. She was in a different race.
I thought it sounded crazy at first too, but I’m sending a perspective from a member of our local running email list. Interesting, because the same idea applies in swimming. If there are two “finals” heats, one consolation final and one final, each with 8 swimmers, and a swimmer in the consolation final has a faster time than a swimmer in finals, that consolation swimmer still only gets 9th place. Why? Because the other swimmers in the finals heat didn’t have the opportunity to swim against him/her. Seems odd but really does make some sense. So I agree she should get some sort of award for winning the “regular” race, but I also think the issue is a bit more complex. They really have put on two races.
I think she deserves an award of some type but not the overall win.
Why?
At any running event a runner takes on one of 2 mentalities. They are in a
time trial or they are in a race.
When you are in a race you run tactically and try to beat the others around
you. When you are racing other runners and not just the clock you don’t
necessarily run the fastest race you can run in case there are other runners
who give surges trying to get ahead at late stages of the race. If you have
run a smart race you will have energy to accelerate with the late surges.
Very few people in any event are racing others. Most are just running a time
trial to beat the times of their recent performances. They can run their
fastest the whole way and what place they come in is not a factor they don’t
need to keep anything in reserve.
So why do I say she should not be given the overall win? First the elites
can’t beat somebody that they do not know they are racing they went to the
start of the elite race and competed against everybody who lined up against
them. Other races I have done make it very clear that if you don’t start
with the elites you are not eligible for the win. This goes for the men too
who start at the same time as the elites.
Also if this was a tactical race between the top women then the time was
slow for a reason and having an additional elite racer with a different
tactic would have changed the overall race. I have no idea if the elites
were just not very elite or if it was a tactical race that would have been
effected by one runner upping the pace 20 seconds per mile(roughly).
Furthermore the elite women only had each other for pacing. This woman ran
in a huge group and had male pacers that certainly gave her an advantage
over the elite women who were running alone in the final stages of the race.
I agree that the lady was fastest and deserves an award but starting women
20 or 30 minutes before the men has been one of the greatest ideas for the
advancement of women’s distance running ever . This situation points out one
of the few potential problems with this format but in general I still think
it is the best way to run a large long distance race. Women are getting
more TV coverage than the men and often produce a more exciting race than
the men causing more spectators to take notice of the women and more women
now want to run after seeing the races.
Another problem with this format is for the elite runners who are not
potential winners it makes a really boring race. Most of the elite women end
up running the entire race alone and do not perform anywhere near their best
times. I have read of several women qualifying for the elite start at
Boston and passing on it because they want to be part of the big race and
have fun rather than run alone for most of the race. If you want to run for
the win you have to endure tough mental challenge and physical challenge
One guy’s opinion
This is total garbage. Nike and the race director should be ashamed. I am sure that the winner was not announced as the winner of the “elite” marathon. Did they announce the winner of the non-elite marathon? I am also sure that the prize money came from the entry fees of the non-elite athletes. I would like to know if the elite (first place) runner even paid an entry fee.
How can any organization get something so basic, wrong. As far the 2 different races theory, that is an excuse for a simple problem. The “elite” runners do not want to be held back by a pack of slower runner and choose to run in a different starting wave. Most of the time it is helpful. Now they want to take a win away from a runner that had to run through a pack.
That is shameful.
I’m not a race director nor do plan on being one, but I do understand that there are specifics to workout or consider i.e. wind, time of day, BUT….FRED I completely agree with you. Shame, shame, shame.
I am pretty sure the reason they start the elite women runners 20 minutes early is so they can lead the men most of the way. Perhaps starting all of the women early would be better.
Most chip timed races go off gun time for the money spots so no one should be surprised that she didn’t get the money.
I don’t know why they don’t just award an elite overall winner and an open field winner.
I don’t have too many “fall-on-the-sword” issues in the world of running, but will throw in my 2 cents.
The “winner” is not the fastest time over the same course on any given day necessarily, but the fastest time recorded by a person in a common field of participants, starting at the same time and competing against the same elements and body of runners.
Not only should one consider the element of competition among common participants, but also the potential for varying circumstances during the event. What if the event is in Chicago near the lakeshore or on the northern California coast where winds can shift and turn with little or no warning?
The elite group starts their race into a 20-mile head wind which they run into for 2 1/2 miles before the marathon makes its first turn. By the time the “citizen” participants start their race, the wind has either steadied to near zero or is perhaps even a tail wind.
Is that the same race?
Now for the element of competition.
Some more sophisicated, talented runners actually evaluate their competition and aim to defeat their competition by utilizing various methods and race strategies, perhaps even through intimidation (spoken or unspoken) or conversation.
As an example, Jose Prusaitis might believe that Pablo Stone will beat him if they are still together with 2 or 3 miles to go in a marathon (Yeah right!!).
So Jose, who is counting on his superior overall level of conditioning, decides to “force” the pace in the early-to-middle miles, essentially in an attempt to burn out the heavier Pablo who is known to feast on chimichangas and cerveza for several nights before a race.
Jose’s strategy works and he wins the race.
What if Pablo and Jose, however, had run “independent” of one another? Might Pablo’s elapsed time been faster than the time of the more savvy Jose?
Hmmm, something to think about…
Happy trails,
Paul
Wow. Great post, and I never thought of it, since I’m not a competetive runner, but after reading, I think you’re right.
So who was she drafting off of? Was she not the winner???
I am sorry - who had the overall fastest time?
Well of course given different courses you have different elements and so different times Paul - that is why we have something called a course record.
Overall fastest time on the same course on the same day?
This is starting to look like the presidential Electoral process.
The official winner was Nora, the fastest time of the day was Arien, but she would have been able to draft off of everyone who started ahead of her and the men running.
I agree. If it is two races then there should be two winners. If it is one race, they should start together. Seems to me you can’t have it both ways.
BTW…
Re: Congratulations Runners on a Great Race! Comments
Posted: Oct 22, 2008 12:03 PM in response to: Nike Running Pro Reply
Hi there,
Nike is announcing today that it recognizes Arien O’Connell as a winner in last weekend’s Nike Women’s Marathon with the fastest chip time, completing the full race in 2:55:11. She shattered her previous time and achieved an amazing accomplishment.
Arien will receive the same recognition and prize, including a Tiffany & Co. bowl, the full marathon elite group winner received. Arien was unfortunately not immediately recognized as a race winner because she did not start the race with the elite running group, which is required by USATF standards. Because of their earlier start time, the runners in the elite group had no knowledge of the outstanding race Arien was running and could not adjust their strategies accordingly.
Learning from the unique experience in this year’s race, Nike has decided today to eliminate the elite running group from future Nike Women’s Marathons. Next year, all runners will run in the same group and all will be eligible to win.
Nike has a proven track record of supporting athletes and we’re proud to be able to honor Arien and other athletes who surpass their goals and achieve great accomplishments.
Nike+ / Nike Running
This is how those panzee African runners always avoid me at the Bolder Boulder 10K! Sure, they think they’re cool with their 28 minute times in the elite race, but how fast would they be if they had to deal with beer bongs, dirty hippies, slip and slides, costumed runners, CU cheerleaders, live bands, and everything else you see on the people’s course?
I say if you wanna run with the big dogs you don’t do it by sneaking up on them from behind.
jt
I say: who is Nike kidding calling it an “elite” race and offering $350 prize money? Did they think they were going to get Deena, Paula, Constantina, etc to come out?
interesting post. you make a good argument, sounds like nora should be the winner. however, it also sounds like they should start the race at the same time, and then declare the winner to be that person with the fastest chip time. is it normal to aware 1st place to the one with the best gun time or chip time? being a middle-of-the-packer, i guess i never thought about the gun time/chip time issue. very interesting!
I did not plan to enter this conversation until my wife asked me what “I” thought was right. To keep it brief (not my forte) I feel that running is the epitome of democracy. As a middle age, middle of the pack, slightly overweight athlete, what other sport in the world could I enter, and compete in the exact same event against the very best competitors in the world? Football, baseball, basketball? Not a chance I would ever get to enter a tournament and play against an NFL, MLB or NBA player. I can however enter the NYC or Chicago Marathon and have my legitimate shot at beating a Cheruiyot or Tergat or Prusaitis (well, Cheruiyot or Tergat anyway). Without regard to how enthusiastically I compete in my local division B masters men’s soccer league, will I ever get to meet, let alone compete against the likes of Beckham or Ronaldo? I don’t think so. No chance at a “Rocky” hero emerging as long as the elites compete only against each other.
They get it “wrong” because these are the rules.
In any elite race, the first person to cross the finish line wins. Chip times do NOT indicate the winner when everyone has the same start time. If you start 10 minutes back & do not pass me, you cannot beat me. Chips were developed when field sizes got so large that there was an unfair advantage to those who started up front & safety became a significant issue. In age-group fields, chip timing is the most convenient way to indicate winners but any race following USATF guidelines cannot use chip timing to determine winners.
USATF Rule 245 section 3
”The official time shall be the time elapsed between the start of the watches or timing devices resulting from an appropriate start signal and when the athlete reaches the finish line. The actual elapsed time between when an athlete reaches the starting line & finish line can be made known to the athlete, but will not be considered an official time.”
Again, under USATF rules, these are 2 separate races & the marathon CANNOT allow O’Connel to win.
I completely agree with Joe.
She can’t win a race she didn’t run. She ran the people’s race…not the elite race. Sure it sucks but rules are rules.
How Nike handled the PR fall-out is ridiculous though. They are certainly not winning any fans without recognizing the Cinderella story opportunity. But who is really surprised at that?
Nike coordinates these races to celebrate women in sports. TNT was a large part of this event so it was also a very large fundraising marathon.
It is also a proud event for women and shows that women may “Train Like A Girl” or “Run Like A Girl” but we can also be apart of something that men can do!
The irony of this event is that there is quite a dispute going on as to who won the women’s race be it Elite or the Open field. There is not a large purse at stake and the winner receives a $350 Tiffany’s crystal bowl. So let’s celebrate that there were two women winners. The effort was there on both parties involved. Sure, they were in different races, but it was the exact same event and rooting for the exact same cause. This female winner in the Open field should know that if she is that fast then getting into a NY, Boston, etc. will require an elite invite. I would imagine she is not that clueless.
Overall - Kudos to all the women in this event and Kudos to the fastest women of the day!!!
Dawn
(I definitely “Run Like A Girl”!)
Absolutely true. . . . two races. . .
And yes, this has happened before. . . .not with the overall winner. . . but with an award winner at that.
Uh, I ran a marathon the very same day thousands of miles away and my time beat all the women’s times…Doesn’t that mean I should be the winner?
Deb
On one hand, I understand the gun time rule, but I think even in a single start time race there are far more advantages to the elites and disadvantages to the runners who start with the pack. First of all, the elites get a place on the starting line — no jostling, dodging and weaving the masses. The starting line is only so wide and the “pack” runners have to fight the crowds for position. For most pack runners, the first few miles are slower because you are limited by the people around you.
Also, having the elites to run with is like running with a “rabbit” pacer. I think those runners are challenged to go faster by the runners around them. That’s why some of them even have professional pacers.
Another elite advantage is that the streets are not yet littered and slick with cups and banana peels. They also typically have a pace car or motorcycle clearing the streets of spectators in front of them and leading the way (yes, I know this has back-fired, but I think the veering off course by the pace car is uncommon).
Finally, if the pack runners start later, they are generally contending with higher temperatures as the sun rises. We have seen the consequences of the heat in Boston 2004 and 2005 and Chicago 2007 and 2008. I think that this is a more common weather issue than a head wind for the front runners that dies later.
I like having one start time with a corral system for seeding start times. If one of the runners from a more distant corral passes the “elites” I think they have worked harder for that win and should be rewarded accordingly.
I read the article yesterday about this race and walked away with a pit in my stomach just thinking how this gal must feel,after all what really determines “elite” status?
There is a huge grey area in this and no two opinions would agree. What might constitute “elite” in one athletes eye might not mean the same to another. A four hour marathoner might see a sub three as elite where as a 3:15 to 2:50 guy might see elite as sub 2:20 and a 2:20 might see elite as sub 2:10 and so on (though that might be stretching it a little) I think that you can see what I am getting at.
As an athlete and a competitive one at that what is one to do?
My own take on all this would be to start all the elites with the rest of the fields and seed accordingly to pace. Gun time determines the winner where as chip time would take care of Boston qualifiers, Pr’s and Age group standings.
Let everyone race together and may the Cinderella story have a chance to unfold… and while I am on it lets get rid of those damn pesky rabbits and go chase after some big game;-).
While it is true that the elites do have the “perks” that are listed below, the elites have earned their place in that group based on past performances and as top athletes. Elites are in a category apart, and it is fun to watch them race as a group. It really is two separate events - apples to oranges. For lots of us “non-elites,” we are in it for the fun, personal satisfaction, and glory of the achievement…. sometimes we might even set a PR or win our age group! I think it is great that she had such an awesome time - it should be recognized as a great accomplishment on her part. Maybe she can enter the elite race next year with her time - then let’s see if she wins.
Yep… they should have left them all in the same field, same start time… but they didn’t.
Obviously, they didnt consider this happening.
The cap10km does the same thing… The elite field starts first… with chips.
The rest of us start later… without chips.
What happens if somebody without a chip wins… not likely? shit happens !!!
This was a silly mistake, there was really no elite field in SF to begin with, so why start some early, and some not. See what kind of problem you have now!. Congrats to the lady who ran 2:55 and had the best time of the day.
You know my comment. All professions of ignorance aside, anyone who can run a sub 3 hour marathon knows the rules. First across the mat wins. Period. End of story. Arien screwed up by not registering as an elite runner. She doesn’t get to change the rules after the fact because she ran better than she expected. The rules are the rules, clearly published and understood by all. Had she run with the elite women it might have been a different race, but she didn’t.
The http://www.lowest-rate-loans.com seem to be important for guys, which would like to start their company. In fact, this is not very hard to get a short term loan.
I think so this post is very interesting and usefull for all us. We must follow this every time.