Absolutely Asinine and Infuriating

[Chris_]

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.

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.

I'd rather not copy/paste the whole article, it's quite 'startling though' imho!   
CLICKY

[thundley4]

What separated the elite runners from the rest of the pack?  Were they the ones with big name sponsors?  That's my guess.

[Flame]

If she ran the fastest time, she won the race, period.   Those officials are stupid idiots!

[NHSparky]

A 20 minute head start!  Which makes her accomplishment all the more spectacular IMHO, as she didn't have 'elite' runners to push her or keep her pace up.

According to the article, 'elite' runners were simply those who stated they were and believed they had a chance to win.  She was humble, didn't consider herself a podium contender, and just ran her heart out to the best time she's ever accomplished!

In the article it's revealed, that the judges didn't even look at the times of the non 'elite' runners when they decided who the winners were, assuming they wouldn't be close... yet she trounced them! 

Nike is embarrassed and hoping the whole thing goes away 

A word from a marathoner, if I may...

The "elite" women are in fact, like the elite men, invited and provided incentives.  Their status is generated based on past performance at other marathons, much like running a particular time at a "qualfier" can automatically guarantee entry to an otherwise overcrowded race like Boston or New York.

However...

She ran her marathon in 2:55:11--an excellent time, to be sure, but by no means "elite".  Compare this to the 2:29:09 for the best women's time in the LA marathon (she would have barely cracked the top 20) and times in the LA marathon have gotten significantly slower since the course was changed from the "loop" it used to be to the "point to point" race it is today. 

Again, the elite women consistently run Boston in under 2:30, and London in under 2:25.

So great time?  Sure.  World-class?  Meh.  Show me a sub-2:35 and I'll give you that.

[thundley4]

Nike fudges, recognizes fastest marathon runner as "a" winner

Marathon runner Arien O'Connell will be a winner after all.

O'Connell ran the fastest time in last Sunday's Nike Women's Marathon, but when she finished she was told she couldn't be awarded first place because she hadn't run in the "elite" women's group, which was given a 20-minute head start.

O'Connell said she was contacted early this morning by a Nike representative who said they were going to award her a trophy and recognize her as a winner.

Not the winner - "a" winner. Notice the distinction.

"She told me they had been getting lots of calls and e-mails," said O'Connell, a fifth-grade teacher in New York City. "She said they were going to send me the same prize as the one awarded to the winner."

Update

[NHSparky]

NHSparky,

Isn't that, all the more reason, to understand why she didn't consider herself an 'elite' marathoner?

She ran the fastest time of any competitor at that marathon, including of the purported 'elite' marathon runners...

She didn't call herself a world class runner, didn't even consider herself an 'elite' runner, but she's been entering an finishing marathons for awhile now... and ran her heart out in this one. 

It's an accomplishment, whether it's world class or not is irrelevant, I can't say 'meh' to anyone who bested their previous personal record regardless of what it is.  Yet alone, when it beats every other competitor including the 'elite' ones at a given event. 

And for that I get a BS?  Nice try.

I'll grant Nike screwed up when they didn't check the finishing time of ALL runners, not that it would have been particularly difficult given the fact that most marathons of any significance issue chips for the runners to put on their shoes.  Hell, they would have been able to tell had they bothered to look at the 10K/Half/30K splits.

But let's not split hairs here.  The story painted her as an "elite" runner, and I'm saying she's not.  Simple as that.  She's good, but not world-class. 

It's also the reason why if you want to be put in certain "corrals", you have to show a time at least as good as what you want to be in.  For example, if you wanted to even be CONSIDERED for "elite" status as a man, you better be consistently under 2:25:00, and 2:40:00 for women.  In order for me to get into the 4-hour corral, you have to show a sub-4 hour time run within the past 12 to 18 months.

Should she have been recognized for her achievement at the time?  Yes.  Was she?  No.  Did Nike screw up?  Yes.  Is the situation remedied?  As best as can be.

But again, is she world-class?  No.  AFAIK, there were NO "elite" runners at that marathon.