Boston Marathon plan roils runners
Distance running, traditionally one of the world’s most genteel sports, has been roiled by an ugly mid-pandemic squabble over who should get a shot at a coveted Boston Marathon medal.
Rival camps in the running world began snapping at each other’s heels this week. It began after the Boston Athletic Association, which still hopes to hold a truncated inperson edition of the planet’s most prestigious footrace in October, said it will award medals to up to 70,000 athletes if they go the distance wherever they are.
Practically within minutes of the BAA’S announcement greatly expanding its virtual version of the race, a boisterous social media maelstrom ensued.
On one side: Runners who’ve spent years training to qualify to run the real thing, including some who complain that mailing medals to people who run the 26.2 miles (42.2 kilometers) in Dallas or Denver will cheapen the iconic Boston experience.
On the other: Pretty much everyone else, including
the plodding masses and runners who raise millions for charities, who counter that anything that helps the 125-year-old marathon survive the COVID -19 crisis is worthwhile.
The bickering seems to have caught many offguard, if only because road racing has long had a reputation as a kind and egalitarian sport.
It’s one of the few disciplines where ordinary amateurs compete in real time on the same course as elite professionals, and where trash-talking is rare. As four-time Boston champion Bill Rodgers famously said: “Running is a sport where everyone gets along.”
A notable exception to that gentility was the 1967 race, when race director Jock Semple ran after Kathrine Switzer — the first woman to run with an official bib number — and tried unsuccessfully to pull her off the course.
It also comes as the Boston Marathon and other big-city races are struggling to stay afloat during the pandemic and looking for creative ways to keep runners engaged online.