In a message dated 9/8/02 8:43:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Why do charity races make sense? I can understand why people give to charity, and can understand why they participate in races, like running or biking. But why are these activities combined so often? Why limit who can give to a charity to who can run in a race, and why limit who can run in a race to who is willing to give to a charity? >> I've run in a couple of charity races, so I might be able to shed a little light on the question. Typically to run in a race one must pay a registration fee, thereby guaranteeing that the race will raise a certain amount of funds just by having participants. Some, perhaps most, participants in the race enter primarily for non-charitable reasons: prestige, a formal goal as a means of motivating exercise, socializing with friends, impressing potentional mates, beating rivals, and in the case of faster runners, prestige and notice, and possibly training along the way toward non-charitable races which compensate winners with trophies and funds. All of these non-charitable (or primarily non-charitable) racers pay the registration fee. It's entirely possible that in some or even all cases the entry fees do not cover expenses, and that my analysis is therefore entirely wrong. I will note that I've received several positive comments while wearing one or another of the t-shirts I got when I registered for charitable races, so that even for a pathetically slow runner like me there's a tiny bit of prestige of a sort to be had by running in a charitable race. Of course *I* ran in the races entirely for charitable reasons! <G> Sincerely, David Levenstam
