Toni Reavis wrote:
We must construct a meaningful architecture for our sport to exist in. Everything else is how we arrange furniture within the new building. But we must create a form that comports with how professional mainstream sports are conducted on a national scale. Right now we are still existing in a totally unregulated marketplace while the governance of our sport remains locked in the time capsule that is the 1978 Amateur Sports Act.
We can debate and compromise on the details, but first we must agree on the blueprints.
Toni, I've read your speech on Runnerville.com and followed the discussion here and, frankly, my head hurts trying to wrap it around all the essential & peripheral aspects. The whole thing seems like an exercise in herding cats- independent sorts that've spilled in all directions as gravity allows. You herd a big one into line...then the LA Marathon moves to Memorial Day weekend. Oh my.
Your passion for the sport is unmistakable and service as observor/commentator professional & thorough. We've crossed paths before & I've always been struck by your commitment to what's good and great about running. You had a captive audience in FL and one hopes that, perhaps, they'll say, "Hey, yeah, things can be better and we're part of the solution." Then they'll communicate w/each other via phone, (e)mail and, best, in person & come to a consensus and a 'blueprint' for change and unification.
Although yours is a visible face & influential voice in running, possibly motivating many to breath new life into their events, presenting a more vibrant look to the public, we shouldn't overlook the bedrock of US running, the grassroots- those whose names we read about in college results (you didn't mention them). Somehow, we need to canvas their thoughts on post-college running; assess their needs, plans & aspirations. Some only need a pat on the back & modest direction, others require more. Our future heroes are still in school yet too many 'hang it up' when eligibility runs out. My guess is at least 100 men & women could make a difference in US running if they continued after graduation but maybe only 10 do. It's great to have people we know going at it head-to-head, training together in small training groups but there's even more to be said for strength in numbers. More sub-30:00 men & sub-34:00 women is better and would garner the attention you describe on it's own.
Per the 'anonymous' runners, mostly from E Africa, that win a huge % of American dollars...I don't think that nut's going to be easy to crack. There are SO many to begin with, the language barrier, few interpreters, bios that are outdated and agents that, clearly, don't do enough to sell/tell their athletes stories. I interpret you to say if we can't know the foreign runners better, you'd invite fewer, thus 'balancing the field'. My question: how do you decide when you know enough about somebody and who's doing the deciding? We've opened our races to foreign runners, they've prospered yet you say the sport isn't better for their participation because they generate little or no play in the media. Two sided sword here...it isn't their fault they do so well and, have we done enough to learn who they are. We really ought to do more to know those who are handing Americans their butts, convincingly in many cases and in numbers.
Per charities...this is a touchy one. I don't think it's as easy as to say charities should hand over a portion of their take from races. But, I'll give you that one. Let's say each gives 3% of the take to the participant race. Who's to say where that money goes once in race coffers? Do you suggest it be required to go toward promoting the front end of each race? Or, would you prefer it be said each race would do so via peer pressure, because it's the going trend in the sport based on a blueprint?
Charity runners...some say they are watering the sport down because they're so slow. I don't buy it. The fast don't get slow because of those behind them. They don't get slow because there's a bandied-about perception fewer everyday care about how fast they are or might be. In the recent Detroit Free Press/Flagstar Bank Marathon, 14% of the men & women hit Boston Marathon qualifying times. Do we dwell on the notion even more would qualify if they worked harder or do we praise those who'll join the enormous field that swells Hopkinton every year? Let's say that 14% became 13% in '09...do we bemoan the rate as sign of a 'slowing apocalypse'?
I've other thoughts but've gone on long enough.