> 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
You miss he point - women would not be up in arms, at least not the women who matter (the athletes) with the scenario you describe, because if they were, the scenario would not exist. What's fair is for the current athletes to decide what they want, which is what happens. Why not grant the male and female subsets of the large group "marathoners" the right to make different choices? That is what is going on here. And if you don't grant that right, then how do you justify the miniscule prize money for the rest of the track and race walking trials - surely that's not "fair" either and we shouldn't allow the marathoners to make that money. - Ed
