> You quote my previous posting which says you failed to answer my > question, BUT YOU STILL DODGE IT. So let me try again (hope springs eternal > that I can get an answer).
> If women were the victims of the disparity in Trails qualifyiing and > winning money, and as a result you were going to the Trials and winning > Chicago Marathon awards while women marathoners who were better than you > were not, can you serioiusly say you would defend such discrimination as > fair? You actually never asked ME that specific question about fairness in any posts before the post I cited where you claimed that I failed to answer it. Instead you said something like wouldn't "people" or "the athletes" would be up in arms? And I DID answer the question, evenb though you didn't ask the specific question of me. I said that if the women's LDR committee - based on athlete surveys of all current athletes of trials caliber - chose to make the standard say 2:40 and the men based on athlete surveys made it 2:30, I most assuredly would believe it was fair and I would ridicule those who claimed that it should be changed despite the athletes' wishes. Now, I can respect your difference of opinion about what the men running between 2:22 and 2:30 think. You are correct that the only way to find out is to ask them, and I do not know if that has been done. I agree that perhaps it should be. I do know that some of them have been in attendance at USATF meetings where the issue has been discussed and have not felt that it was unfair. The votes at these meetings (at least for the last two trials) tend to be at least 80% in favor of the tighter standards. It's pretty much a few coaches and the occasional athlete who vote to loosen the standards. I figure I know somewhere between 10 and 20 guys who have run in that range in the past five years well enough to know what they think of the issue and not one of them feels strongly that the current setup is unfair. Some feel that they would be fine either way and some specifically do not want it changed because it would make qualifying less meaningful - even if it means they will never qualify. The bottom line is that many of these athletes LIKE the fact that the standad is harder. This is because they know that it means more with the harder standard, and 2:25-2:30 marathoners do not tend to think that they somehow "deserve" to make the trials just because the women have a bit easier standard. They certainly don't tend to think of themselves as elite athletes, although many of them are supremely motivated to take it to the next level. We've heard from - I think - 3 guys in that time range on this list (not counting me, who doesn't quite fit the profile) who agreed with my thoughts on what these athletes think. One would think that if you were correct about how they feel, we would have heard from some who disagree with you, although maybe there aren't many on the list. - Ed Parrot > > > >From: "edndana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: "edndana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout > >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:02:58 -0500 > > > > > BUT you failed to answer my question about fairness at least as to > >what > > > you would say if women were the victims of the disparity instead of men. > >If > > > you were going to the Trials and winning money, and women who were > >better > > > than you (i.e.proportionally closer to the world and Amerixcan records) > >were > > > not similary rewarded, can you seriously say you would defend such > > > discrimination as fair? Geoff > > > >Actually, am I wrong, or is there more money at the men's trials this time > >around? If not, hasn't there been a time or two where that has been the > >case? Another function of two different committees, two different races. > > > >- Ed Parrot > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. > Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service > providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com >
