None of the three responders really answered the fundamental question: Fairness. Let me put it this way. What if men got into the Trials - and won $2,500-3,500 bonuses at Chicago - for running 2:24-2:32 and women had to run 2:35-2:38 to qualify for Trials/bonuses? Women would be up in arms, right? And wouldn't these guys support them. Yet those standards I've just suggested as unfair to women are probably fairer, proportionally, than the current standards disparity is to men.
Geoff
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Geoff Pietsch"), [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:59:37 -0500
I have been a 2:20's-2:30 marathoner for many years. It does not bother me to see women get to go to the trials, or make money.
Complaining about equality or stripping prize money opportunity from the women will never make me a faster runner.
Mike Platt
In a message dated 10/29/2003 8:34:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It's tough enough for a mid-to-high 2:20s - and even low 2:30s - male to
> see similarly talented women (those between 2:40 and 2:48) make the Trials,
> when they have to stay home, but it seems like rubbing salt in the wounds to
> also see them get thousands of dollars for those
> proportionately slower or
> similar times.
> Geoff
_________________________________________________________________
Never get a busy signal because you are always connected with high-speed Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers. https://broadband.msn.com
