I’m standing in one of the start pens of the Great Eastern
Run 2019 (also known as the Peterbough Half Marathon); it’s cold, windy and
everyone has been standing around for 45 minutes. We were meant to start at
10:30am, time is ticking away and we have only been drip fed information by the
race organiser. The tannoy announcer asks for everyone’s attention and says
that the race has been cancelled, due to a recommendation by the police. It is
my first time at this race and it is not a great introduction, as runners go
off in all directions; some go to get changed and others to do their 13 miles at
whatever the cost. It turns out that the reason for the cancellation was
because of a man acting suspiciously
at mile 11, though the exact reason for why the police decided it was a threat will
remain a mystery. From my personal perspective the race organisers could have
been more adaptable to how they dealt with this problem. That said in this day
and age of social media witch-hunts being conducted on a regular basis, it
would have only taken one thing to go wrong and then the race organisers would
have been crucified for not exercising caution. So after my initial frustration
I can see why the race was cancelled.
Whilst my final race before the Valencia marathon was
literally a damp squib, October has actually been an exciting month for running
in so many ways. The London Marathon ballot results have come through, Callum
Hawkins was amazing at Doha in the World Championship Marathon, Alberto Salazar
has been found guilty of doping, Eliud Kipchoge went under two hours for the
marathon and there has been much debate about the significance of this event.
London Marathon ballot
At the beginning of October my social media feed was full of
people complaining about not getting into the London Marathon 2020 (VLM),
however with over 450,000
people applying for places were people that surprised. For the record I do have
a lot of sympathy who are frustrated about not getting into the VLM. When I
first started contemplating running marathons my first thought and then aim was
to get into the VLM via a charity. However I was rejected and ended up having
an amazing race at the Brighton Marathon, doing it in fancy dress. My point
being is that you can still have great marathons at other UK destinations;
Manchester, York, Abingdon, etc. comes to mind.
I am fairly certain that most people’s responses to this
suggestion is that they want to enter the VLM because of the status of it being
a big city marathon, the support you get round the course and it simply being a
phenomenal event. If you want that then you are going to have to realise that
the VLM is the equivalent of ‘Glastonbury’ for running; it is in incredibly
high demand and spaces are limited.
Unfortunately for the VLM it is trying to cater for many
different types of runners that it will never win. At one end you have got
world class elites, like Kipchoge, defending their title, wheelchair racers,
elite amateur runners setting amazing times, partially sighted runners, good
for age runners, club runners, international runners, charity runners and
general mass participation runners. At some point somebody is going to get
upset that they didn’t get in, and in some cases blame other runners who they
see as ‘taking up spaces’. Nowhere was this more painfully acute last year than
the controversy
surrounding cut off times for people run/ walking around the seven to eight
hour finishing time. Whilst finding the news article about this I also came
across what I thought was a relatively balanced
article, by a middle-of-the pack runner, about finishing times.
I was saddened and disappointed when I saw on twitter some
club runners say that their club mates deserve a space over general runners. I
just don’t buy that argument. Clubs are given a limited number of places
admittedly, but surely as a club runner you appreciate the whole range of
marathon events rather than just the VLM? Also given that these people are part
of a running club, then they could aim for that lofty goal for many runners of
breaking 3 hours in a marathon to get a good for age place. I am not saying
this is an easy feat, and for some people it may not be possible, however it is
one of the most amazing journeys that I have been on and felt privileged to
work towards to that goal. It took me more than two years to achieve sub-3
hours; on a quiet leafy marathon in Oxford. I am incredibly grateful for what I
learnt about myself and my running.
Another criticism levelled at the VLM is that it allows far
too many charity runners to get in. I think some perspective is needed around
this point. Whilst some people may use the charity route just to do the
marathon, the money is still effectively going to a good cause; however I think
people should stop and pause to reflect that there are people who are genuinely
running for a charity because they have lost a family member or friend. I know
someone who lost a family member who doesn’t like running at all, but did the VLM
for the cause of the charity that looked after their loved one. Just think
about that for a second? A person who will probably never run again, and is in
a state of grief, wants to use this event to commemorate a person dear to their
hearts. I can only stand in awe and respect of someone who chooses to do that.
I can think of other alternatives to the VLM, entering the
Berlin Marathon ballot (I’ve been rejected by that) or going to the USA that
has an amazing running scene. I appreciate the VLM won’t always get it right
and no running event is perfect, whatever the hype attached to it. What I do think is there are other, more
constructive ways to run a great marathon than just complaining about the VLM
ballot.
The annoying tick!
I would love to work in either Nike’s public relations or
marketing department; they seem to have perfected the art of cognitive
dissonance! Over the past few months Nike has seemed to be part of, connected
or acted in a way that people would interpret as behaving in a manner contrary
to the spirit of athletics. It seems consumers, the media, athletes and sports
bodies are happy to associate themselves with Nike; despite the series of controversies
engulfing the company.
At the beginning of October it emerged Alberto Salazar was to be
banned for four years, following a lengthy investigation by the US
anti-doping agency and two-year court battle that he was found guilty of doping
violations. This is where the disconnect began between Nike’s involvement,
through their eponymous Nike Oregon
Project (NOP), and essentially how far they were involved with Salazar with
the NOP. Instead athletes such as Hassan and Farah were questioned about
whether they thought had done anything that might warrant an investigation into
their association with Salazar. What was so astonishing about this line of
questioning, is that it completely ignored the role that the NOP played in all
of this. If it wasn’t for the funding that Salazar received from NOP, then
Salazar would not have been able to commit the offences that he was
subsequently found guilty for. We will never know what discussions took
place between Nike and Salazar, as that could potentially incriminate Salazar
even further. What would be fascinating to understand is what sort of remit
Salazar was given by Nike: win at all
costs, push the boundaries but don’t get caught or just don’t tell any of the
athletes. Whatever took place the Salazar scandal casts a long shadow over
Nike, its athletes and has ultimately led to the demise of its CEO. It
seems strange, and frankly disappointing, that Nike is able to close down the
NOP and walk away from the damage it has done to the athletics world. Yet if people
still seem happy to buy their shoes and clothes, so the cognitive dissonance
will continue.
News of Salazar’s guilt was soon eclipsed by Eliud Kipchoge breaking
two hours. When the news filtered in from social media, the mainstream news
and running colleagues that two hours had been broken; the initial thought was
that marathon running had has this event imposed upon it. Increasingly the
coverage talked about how ‘inspirational’ this performance was and repeating
Ineos’s tagline: ‘no human is limited’.
Unfortunately those trite statements serve the marketing
departments more than enabling people to improve their running. Before this
article goes any further, it should be made clear that Kipchoge’s performance
is simply amazing; there can be no doubt about that. It must, however, be
questioned whether the majority of people watching Kipchoge that day have
experienced running roughly 4:35 min/ mile for a 5k race; let alone for a whole
marathon. So the question would be how does someone with all the pacers,
financial aid, technological aid and many years of running in their legs
inspire someone to run a normal marathon in an average time of between 4 -5
hours? The individual may have the urge to run a marathon and whilst the distance
may be the same, they are two very different undertakings.
Furthermore the Ineos tagline that no human is limited,
whilst a happy and worthwhile statement, clashes with a fundamental limiter
within running. All sports to a certain extent require a genetic advantage for
a person to get to the top of their sport, but running makes this glaringly
apparent. If you don’t have the aerobic engine, as well as the physical body to
do the running, then you won’t achieve the times. Kipchoge is one of a unique
group of human beings that was able to break that two hour barrier. Of course
no human is limited could be taken as a metaphorical call to arms, but the
tagline rang hollow with so much support afforded to Kipchoge on the day.
Ineos couldn’t resist going into hyperbole on twitter,
comparing breaking two hours for a marathon as the same achievement as sending
men to the moon. There is a vast gulf between the two endeavours if failure
happens; one you step off the road and trying again another day, whereas men
have died going to the moon. Ineos may have unwittingly made an ironic and
darker comparison to the first man on the man, as it has been reported that its
owner has been determined to avoid
paying his company’s tax in the UK. If Kipchoge and his management had
wanted the taglines from 1:59 to ring true, they may have wanted to reconsider
who was supporting them. The parallel with the first man on the moon is that
the achievement was only possible, because the US government decided to prioritise obtaining
Nazi scientists in the Second World War over hunting out perpetrators of
the Holocaust. The 1:59 was only possible because Jim Radcliffe, the owner of Ineos,
decided that he would rather not pay his taxes; and use the event of Vienna as
his own plaything.
The tipping point for writing this article critiquing
Kipchoge’s sub-2 hour achievement was the news that Ryan Hall had been hounded
by the social media brigade, for suggesting that there needs be a regulation of
the prototype shoes that were used by Kipchoge at Vienna. Most of the
witch-hunt was not actually a constructive criticism regarding Hall’s point
about creating a level playing field for elite athletes, but accused him of
being negative and jealous of Kipchoge. Is that what happens when people make
valid points about the nature of breaking the two hour barrier for the
marathon? Are we devoid of having a reasonable debate about how running can potentially
make a lot of money for companies? Remove the cynical element from the last question,
and you will see that running is big business. It is important to be able to
discuss whether we want market forces to shape the world of running or to look at
other
ways that we can get people to participate in running.
There is no doubt that the Vaporfly’s, especially the ones
worn in Vienna, arouse
controversy and strong views in the running community. The public seemed to
be disconnected from Nike’s misdemeanours mentioned above, and other
issues that have previously been written about. For most runners (not all!)
the shoes are the last thing that they need to improve their running; mileage,
intensity, coaching, more recovery, etc. could all be things that could get
them a PB. Running for most people, will be against themselves, and whilst the
thrill of being quicker than many other people will always be a buzz; deep down
it is knowing that you have done your best that is what makes running so
special to each person. Times are objective, but effort is relative to the
person’s ability. The Vaporfly’s do not change that.
For anyone who has managed to read this far, for what has
been one of my longest posts in a while, I have come to the following conclusions
regarding Nike’s controversial shoes. For me this
article from Fast Running has perfectly summed up my views, and echoes what
one of my running friends said to me on hearing the news of 1:59. Namely that Kipchoge’s
performance is brilliant and is a great personal achievement; however Ineos
chose to market and compare the performance to competitively raced marathons. This
is turn has damaged the perception of competitive marathon running to the public,
unnecessarily blurring the boundaries of what assistance is given in marathon running
and provides an anti-climax for the person who may eventually break two hours
in a competitive marathon race. This may sound pedantic, but it does have important
repercussions for running. On a final note on this topic is the challenge of trying
to regulate the shoes, and what in particular gives the shoes the 4% return, which
Alex
Hutchinson deals with this in an expertly written article.
Running on personal note
Callum
Hawkins’s near medal miss at the men’s marathon at the World Championship, was
simply amazing to watch and something that I drew immense inspiration from. In fact,
that along with the England rugby team’s current performances, this has sustained
some of the harder training that I am doing at the moment. I can feel my fitness
starting to come back, am grateful for the opportunity to be able to train again
like I have done before and go into the final phase of my training for Valencia.
No comments:
Post a Comment