Chicago Marathon drops pacesetters

[5km]

From Canadian Running Magazine:

http://runningmagazine.ca/chicago-marat ... cesetters/

I, for one, am in favour of this. Thoughts?

[ian]

Translation: It's been over a decade since any world records were set at this race (in fact, we're no longer eligible for the world record in the women's race) and we'd rather shift attention away from this, therefore we'll save some money and spit out some platitude about tactics.

Sarcasm aside, I think that pacers should be the exception rather than the rule. One idea for making a race more compelling would be to have prize bonuses for the first one across each of the 5K checkpoints (but only payable if the runner finishes in the top 10).

[scrumhalfgirl]

At first I thought this was going to be about pace groups for us mortals, and couldn't understand why!

But in general, I like the idea.

Ian - why aren't they eligible for the women?

[canalrunner]

I agree. It would make it more of a race and more about tactics.

It will save money for races but it will also mean a number of strong runners who could make a living pacing elite marathons will not have that source of income.

The pace groups for mortals were developed in part due to the success of pacers for the elites.

[canalrunner]

I agree. It would make it more of a race and more about tactics.

[ian]

Ian - why aren't they eligible for the women?

The elite women still start alongside the men, therefore there is the possibility of being paced by someone not in the (women's) race. This was a big deal a few years ago when the rules were clarified and it was debated whether or not Paula Radcliffe's WR would be demoted.

[La]

Ian - why aren't they eligible for the women?

The elite women still start alongside the men, therefore there is the possibility of being paced by someone not in the (women's) race. This was a big deal a few years ago when the rules were clarified and it was debated whether or not Paula Radcliffe's WR would be demoted.

They would have to start the elite women 30 minutes (or so) ahead of the men, like they do in Boston. Does NY do that?

[ian]

Ian - why aren't they eligible for the women?

The elite women still start alongside the men, therefore there is the possibility of being paced by someone not in the (women's) race. This was a big deal a few years ago when the rules were clarified and it was debated whether or not Paula Radcliffe's WR would be demoted.

They would have to start the elite women 30 minutes (or so) ahead of the men, like they do in Boston. Does NY do that?

Yes, NYC now does an early start for elite women. On the other hand, that course is very unlikely to see a WR (and, based on the separation of the start and finish lines, might not even be eligible).

[La]

Ian - why aren't they eligible for the women?

The elite women still start alongside the men, therefore there is the possibility of being paced by someone not in the (women's) race. This was a big deal a few years ago when the rules were clarified and it was debated whether or not Paula Radcliffe's WR would be demoted.

They would have to start the elite women 30 minutes (or so) ahead of the men, like they do in Boston. Does NY do that?

Yes, NYC now does an early start for elite women. On the other hand, that course is very unlikely to see a WR (and, based on the separation of the start and finish lines, might not even be eligible).

But Boston isn't eligible, either.

[ian]

But Boston isn't eligible, either.

True. Like NYC, Boston starts late enough in the morning that it isn't as difficult to arrange a separate women's start (as compared to Chicago, which starts in the early morning). Chicago is essentially the only North American course that could reasonably be in the mix for WR attempts and they're choosing to leave that to the races in Europe.

[canalrunner]

So should Toronto Scotiabank (also a fast course) and Ottawa drop their elite pacers?

[purdy65]

I also heard that they didn't just drop the elite pacers, but the regular joe pace bunnies too. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I think none of the other big majors have them. I know Boston and NY don't. They had them when I ran Chicago in 2010.

[ian]

So should Toronto Scotiabank (also a fast course) and Ottawa drop their elite pacers?

Those races typically use pacers to shoot for "Canadian soil" records or to help elite Canadian runners reach various goals. I suspect that that's a bit cheaper than trying to find pacers for WR pace. If that still makes sense for their budget, there's no reason to change on account of the Chicago decision.

I also heard that they didn't just drop the elite pacers, but the regular joe pace bunnies too. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I think none of the other big majors have them. I know Boston and NY don't. They had them when I ran Chicago in 2010.

I don't think the logistics work very well here because of the wide range in chip times and the likelihood of having tight clusters of several hundred runners surrounding the bunnies. Even for much smaller races, pace groups can jam up a course.

[canalrunner]

So should Toronto Scotiabank (also a fast course) and Ottawa drop their elite pacers?

Those races typically use pacers to shoot for "Canadian soil" records or to help elite Canadian runners reach various goals. I suspect that that's a bit cheaper than trying to find pacers for WR pace. If that still makes sense for their budget, there's no reason to change on account of the Chicago decision.

I also heard that they didn't just drop the elite pacers, but the regular joe pace bunnies too. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I think none of the other big majors have them. I know Boston and NY don't. They had them when I ran Chicago in 2010.

I don't think the logistics work very well here because of the wide range in chip times and the likelihood of having tight clusters of several hundred runners surrounding the bunnies. Even for much smaller races, pace groups can jam up a course.

I have heard the argument that everyone under 3 hours should race, not be paced. Have been told that having a 3 hour pacer diminishes the accomplishment of the person going sub 3 hours. I know New York has pacers for humans, not sure about elites. I suspect that when you drop official pacers for elites that many will engage a fellow runner to help pace them given the prize money, advantages of drafting and various training cycles.

[ian]

I have heard the argument that everyone under 3 hours should race, not be paced. Have been told that having a 3 hour pacer diminishes the accomplishment of the person going sub 3 hours.

I haven't heard that one yet. It sounds like it comes from the same sort of people who say that you didn't "run a marathon" if you so much as walked through a water station.

I know New York has pacers for humans, not sure about elites.

In 2008, it was an unofficial program where entrants could pin a "pace team" bib to the back of their shirt to indicate their goal. On my way to a sub-3, I passed a 4:00 pacer at mile 12.

I suspect that when you drop official pacers for elites that many will engage a fellow runner to help pace them given the prize money, advantages of drafting and various training cycles.

I'm not aware of any races intending to ban cooperation between runners, provided it doesn't interfere with others. That last bit is a fine line sometimes and is one reason why I'd be reluctant to informally pace a female runner who is in contention for overall awards.

[La]

I suspect that when you drop official pacers for elites that many will engage a fellow runner to help pace them given the prize money, advantages of drafting and various training cycles.

I'm not aware of any races intending to ban cooperation between runners, provided it doesn't interfere with others. That last bit is a fine line sometimes and is one reason why I'd be reluctant to informally pace a female runner who is in contention for overall awards.

Is that because you don't think a man should pace a woman (unfair advantage?), or that you wouldn't offer to pace anyone who was a contender? I guess the second question is moot because if you were pacing another guy, you'd also be in contention for an award (unless you dropped off after 30K like many pacers do).

[ian]

Is that because you don't think a man should pace a woman (unfair advantage?), or that you wouldn't offer to pace anyone who was a contender? I guess the second question is moot because if you were pacing another guy, you'd also be in contention for an award (unless you dropped off after 30K like many pacers do).

Some of everything. While I have often paced others in races (either arranged in advance or something that just evolved early on in a race), it has never been an exclusive thing that precludes other racers from joining the group (and they often do). As you note, if I'm pacing another man, I'm in contention for the same prizes he is, therefore my choice to race at less than 100% affects me as much as anyone. Besides, it would only be in very small (and less serious) races that my pacing speed could still have me in overall contention. Pacing a woman can change some of these assumptions and I'd have to consider whether this would be fair for other women near the top of the race. BQs, PBs, and sub-3s are the sorts of individual goals that I can more easily justify than helping someone run specifically for placement.

[canalrunner]

Pacing a woman can change some of these assumptions and I'd have to consider whether this would be fair for other women near the top of the race. BQs, PBs, and sub-3s are the sorts of individual goals that I can more easily justify than helping someone run specifically for placement.

+1 The 'win" comes from within in those circumstances rather than from the podium or pay cheque.