No, No, Don’t Lower Your Fees! Do the Opposite–Maybe

The Athlinks report “2022 End of Year State of the Industry” is rich with valuable information, enhanced by meaningful graphics. A lot of good useful stuff. To download the .pdf go to https://go.chronotrack.com/athlinks-state-of-the-industry-2022.

But what’s with the curious advice, “Saving on costs where possible in order to lower registration fees may be an impactful strategy as we enter 2023”?

Saving on costs, yes! Lowering registration fees, no! That’s the kind of “impact” you can do without.

In fact, there is no better time to raise fees than now, when buyers have become so inured to sticker shock that small increases on goods and services are expected if they are even noticed. If you maintain your old fees during inflation, then you are already discounting your services in constant dollars—as much as 9% since 2021, 16% since 2019. Just don’t overdo it—boosting your 2019 fees by 16% could risk a fierce backlash.

Indeed, the pie chart near the end of the Athlinks report itself strongly suggests that modest price increases or holding fees steady should not be much of a barrier to participation. In the pie chart “Why haven’t you raced since before the pandemic?” you see that “Trying to save money” is only 6.9% of the pie. It’s  outweighed by “temporary injury” (13.2%), “out of the habit” (13.2%) and far outweighed by “out of shape” (18.1%). Even “Not as many events” comes in at 9.3%, suggesting that runners might be willing to pay a bit more just to have a race to go to at all. (Other less relevant categories in the pie chart add up to the remaining 40%.)

When we wrote an article on inflation and road races back in the July issue of Road Race Management Newsletter (“The Inflation Squeeze”), we found that six of the nine experienced race directors we interviewed have either upped their fees by $5-10 or are planning to. Jon Scott at Maxwell Medals observed that travel and hospitality expenses have grown out of proportion to fees, and in “destination races” with a customer radius of a thousand miles or more, those expenses can dwarf the race registration fees.

Responding to our article in the August issue of Road Race Management Newsletter, Michael Iser wrote:

“I doubt very much that shoe companies will worry about an additional $5 charge to their product, when that is what they need to do to stay in business. Yet our races wring their hands at such an increase because of what their customer might say or do. However, if you don’t charge what you need to stay in business, at the end of the day there won’t be a business, and the runners will not have a place to go. In addition, there are ways to ‘add on’ benefits that cost you nothing to offer, but might make a difference to the bottom line.“

(Iser has worked with many small businesses and insures events of all sizes around the United States from a World Marathon Majors event to local 5Ks. In addition to being a member of Road Race Management, Mike is a member of RUSA, IIRM, ESA and The Global Crowd Management Alliance.)

Running shoe prices are a good example of how negligible small price differences are in relation to the value for the customer. When you find a shoe you really like, are you going to reject it in favor of a similar shoe that you don’t like as much, because it costs $10 more? All the hours and miles you will be running in that shoe make the price difference moot. (Incidentally, this argues for buying shoes in a running shoe store, where you can get to try on several pairs and even trot around in them on the spot. Think of the many times when these objects will become almost literally part of you.)

Michael noted that insurance costs have been creeping up and insurance coverage has been creeping down. Better to find a broker than buy online.

“Yet many race directors are willing to go online to buy insurance, just so they can secure their permit, instead of searching out a broker who can provide advice and support. Your insurance broker should not be a name in your Outlook directory, but the person you should contact along with your lawyer and accountant when critical decisions need to be made.”

As with the shoe, so with the race in terms of value to the customer. Make it better, make it more exciting, make it different, make it imaginative, and market the heck out of it—and then the customer will shrug off a modest price increase to enhance their quality of life. And if you choose to keep your fees as is, no one will have reason to complain.

Ban “Super Shoes” in Championships; Make Some “Records” Bests

Molly Huddle speculated how super-shoes such as Nike’s Vaporfly and Alphafly may skew the playing field in the upcoming Olympic Trials Marathon Trials. In a tweet responding to another tweet about the Nike shoe issue, she said “Kinda nervous as to how this would affect the Olympic Trials over here @usatf.”

While the running world waits in suspense for the IAAF/World Athletics decision on the legality of Nike’s game-changing shoes, Nike-shod athletes continue to crush competitors and records.

“It’s all about the shoes” lament detractors of the use of various species of the Nike “Fly” line–crowned by the Alphafly worn by Eliud Kipchoge cracking the two-hour marathon, that brought into sharp relief the growing domination of Fly-shoe wearers in elite competition. That includes Brigid Kosgei, who brilliantly set a world record in the Chicago Marathon in October.

Running into an early grave: more is worse. No, wait! More can be good . . .

By now we’ve all heard it – by “we” I mean those of us who are drawn to strenuous exercise – and by “it” I mean the damage to health purportedly inflicted by that very exercise. That is, you can have too much of a Good Thing––the Good Thing in this case being the kind of prolonged intense effort that produces the runner’s high, a sense of satisfaction in your degree of fitness, and often the pride that comes with busting through the pain barrier in a hard workout.

The science says that if your hope is for a longer or higher quality life, you’re probably kidding yourself.  I speak of the sinister “U-shaped curve” correlating strenuous exercise with mortality. The upright on one side of the “U” represents the high mortality of sedentary folks, and the opposite upright represents the high mortality of super-exercisers––to include you, perhaps. In the valley between are found those whose more moderate exercise habits confer a longer life span, if not the level of fitness you enjoy and crave.

Perhaps the most influential research on the association between exercise and mortality appeared in the results of the Copenhagen City Heart Study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology in 2015.  The abstract concludes, “the findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary non-joggers, whereas strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group!”  (The exclamation point is mine.)

Before you start thinking of ways to throw shade at the American College of Cardiology, take note of the carefully chosen word “suggest” in the conclusions. There were more than 5,000 subjects in the study and the authors marshal an impressive array of confidence intervals by way of validating the evidence. Even so, the Background section of the abstract does say that “the ideal dose of exercise to improve longevity is uncertain.”

The Price of Fairness: How Many Categories of Athletes Should We Have?

The hottest spark in the women’s testosterone controversy: the case of Caster Semenya

The standoff between Caster Semenya and the IAAF concerning levels of testosterone permitted for women in international competition has driven so much heated debate on both sides, that a middle-ground compromise was proposed by former 10,000 meter world champion Liz McColgan. The proposal: have separate events for transgender athletes and those with differences of sex development (DSD) like Caster Semenya, in addition to the conventional men’s and women’s categories.

The IAAF rules on Semenya have recently been validated by a 2-1 decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). They mandate that Semenya lower her testosterone levels with medication to bring them in line with the natural levels of other, non-DSD women, for international competition at certain distances. However, Semenya has continued a legal fight against the IAAF and recently achieved a victory in a Swiss court.

Middle-Distance Track Gets a Boost in the Eastern U.S. – Why It’s Good for Road Racing

Eastern Track League Bursts out of the Blocks

The recent formation of the Eastern Track League (ETL) out of five East Coast middle distance track and field groups is a welcome shot in the arm – er, leg? – for USA track and field across the nation.

The ETL has just launched a series of six meets to conclude with a final bearing prize money in Washington, DC on July 13, heading toward the USATF championships later in the month in Des Moines. For an overview of the series, see http://easterntrackleague.com/

You can find additional information on all five remaining meets on Road Race Management’s Online Guide to Prize Money Races.

So . . .  the prize money events in the ETL final (men’s and women’s) are only 800m, 1500m, and the 3000m steeplechase. Not long ago I lamented the IAAF dropping the 5000m and 10,000m for scoring in the Diamond League meets beginning in 2020. Now I’m cheering for middle distances on the track? How does this connect to road racing? And should it?

When Is Reporting an Infraction a “Betrayal?”

When Ashley Rollins found her Boston Qualifying time at the California International Marathon (CIM) was nullified because she was paced, she lashed out at the person who informed on her, saying the informer had betrayed her and was “mean-spirited,” “deplorable” and “cruel.”

The formal rules on pacing in a road race are pretty clear and logical. Rule #1 is the pacer must be registered in the race and participating in the event. Even if registered, the pacer cannot jump in after the start of the race. The woman who ran with Rollins at the CIM was not registered and jumped in at the halfway point. When that was reported to Marathon Investigation, the race was notified, and Rollins’s results, instead of producing a BQ, produced a DQ.

The Testosterone Controversy Concerning Female Athletes: Must It Be So Complicated?

Here’s the bare bones of the controversy centered, for the moment, on Caster Semenya, who dominates women’s middle distance running.  Semenya’s testosterone levels score in the male range. The IAAF says that constitutes an unfair advantage over other female athletes with normal testosterone levels. They have created a regulation to require that Semenya, and others like her, take medication to lower their testosterone to an approved level to qualify for international competition.  Semenya has challenged that regulation, and brought the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).  The medication regime must begin six months prior to the competition–although for the moment the IAAF has relaxed that condition, because the CAS has postponed a decision until late April, less than six months before the start of the World Championships.

Caster Semenya vs the IAAF raises a host of complex questions regarding the psychological and biological dimensions of individual gender identity and gender identification, as well as the social and cultural aspects of group identity. Today we are presented with an unprecedented range of possibilities, with the standard contrast between straight and LGBTQ (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transexual-Queer) being only a starting point.

It is very complex, and appreciating its complexity takes a great deal of empathy, patience, and a preparedness to have one’s unconscious biases and preconceptions challenged deeply.

But . . .

When it comes to the natural testosterone levels of women in sport, maybe it doesn’t have to be so complicated.

For a nuanced commentary on the pros and cons of the issue – what the IAAF terms “Differences in Sexual Development”regarding such athletes as Caster Semenya – read “Here’s What’s at Stake in the Caster Semenya Case” by Martin Fitz Huber in Outside magazine.

For my money, Huber puts his finger on the heart of the quandary when he says: “arguing this is a human rights issue, rather than a question of athletic fairness, is perhaps the strongest point in Semenya’s favor.” (I have emphasized “human rights issue.”)

A very strong point which I believe is decisive.

Long Distances Vanishing from the Diamond League–Who Cares?

The IAAF has dropped distances beyond 3,000 meters from its Diamond League series, beginning in 2020. The Diamond League comprises 14 track-and-field meets between May and September. Ten of the competitions are held in Europe, and one in the U.S. (the Prefontaine Classic in Eugene). The move sharply stung long-distance runners and their fans. One of the fiercest reactions came from long-distance great Haile Gebrselassie, who pointed out the shift would disproportionately affect Ethiopian and and Kenyan runners.

Chopping 5,000 and 10,000 meters from Diamond League competitions could reverberate throughout the entire running world. It is from their arena that the best marathoners have often emerged.

What’s going on? These distances have been part of the Olympics since 1912, and they have been indispensable yardsticks by which long-distance prowess is measured worldwide. These distances will be contested in the World Championships in 2019 and 2021, but cutting them from the Diamond League will curtail opportunities for the world’s best to hone their fitness and to size up their competitors and learn from them. This could erode the quality of long distance races in other venues.

What’s going on, it would seem, is a focusing on events that excite the modern TV viewer, especially the American viewer, who finds the length of races above 3000 meters boring. The Diamond League makes up a substantial chunk of NBC’s track and field coverage, and you can well imagine that many American viewers–fed a sports diet consisting largely of games emphasizing quickness and power–are turned off by the sluggish progress of races that occupy the track for one laborious lap after another after another after another. Following long-distance races may repeatedly call for cameras to cut away from explosive field events such as the high jump, long jump, triple jump, and pole vault. During the course of a meet, the high jump elicits many more “wows” than the finish of the 10,000 meters. The athleticism of pole vaulters is awesome. The long races impose large gaps between shorter races that offer more suspense per minute. What’s more, there are few Americans to be found in super-elite long distance fields consisting largely of African runners.

The bias toward speed and explosiveness is part of a general culture shift in the Instagram age, where leaders in politics, sports, entertainment, and even science broadcast their thoughts in Twitter blasts; a twelve-hour news cycle has become the norm; and multiple explosions are necessities in action movies. Internet users expect results from their web searches to pop up on the screen within microseconds. Who needs a trip to the library to look up the populations of the Middle East countries?

The 5,000 and 10,000 meters appeal primarily to traditionalists who gravitate to a slower pace of life generally–depending on culture, background, and often just age. With participation in marathons and half marathons dropping steadily, it has become apparent that many who joined the half-marathon surge several years ago have wearied of the time and energy required to keep long-distance-fit. They’ve consigned their half marathon to their bucket list—one and done. The satisfaction that comes from striding rhythmically along at one’s aerobic red line for mile after mile is enjoyed by only a few—a group to which you the reader probably belong—and it is only those few who can really appreciate what it takes to compete in a six-mile-long race.

Are we a fading breed? The organizers of the Diamond League seem to think so.

Olympics Reputation Sinks, Part II: Injustice in Host Cities

Is one Olympic host city the answer to the downsides of host city bidding?

The Olympics–who needs them? Chicago, Boston, and the state of Colorado said no thanks, as well as Hamburg and Budapest in Europe. Opposition to Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 continue to raise questions about the overall benefit of the Games to host cities, when economic growth for private profit  is pitted against the socioeconomic good of the public at large.

For starters, the economic argument has long been controversial in itself.  In a paper in The Sport Journal, the authors concluded that “The Benefits of Bidding and Hosting the Olympic Games Are Difficult to Justify Due to the Overall Costs” (see Analysis of costs of hosting Olympics). Andrew Zimbalist’s 2015 book, Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup, identified the 1970s as the turning point when the payoff for gambling on Olympic hosting began to drop below break-even. Zimbalist, a sports economist, used four case studies–Barcelona, Sochi, Rio, and London–to support his thesis that the costs of modern Olympic extravaganzas outrun tangible economic benefits in most cities.  Los Angeles’s success in 1984 owed in part to the use of existing infrastructure rather than having to build all new facilities.

An article from the Council on Foreign Relations has a revealing graph illustrating the discrepancies between projected and final costs in eleven cities from 1996 through 2016. In most cases the final cost more than doubled the original estimate. So-called white elephants such as Beijing’s “Bird’s Nest” stadium incur maintenance costs that linger long after the initial construction – the “Bird’s Nest” costs $10 million a year to maintain and sits mostly unused. See Council on Foreign Relations addresses costs of Olympic Games.

Olympics Reputation Sinks, Part I: Russian Doping Scandal

Laxity on the part of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) toward performance-enhancing drugs is nowhere better illustrated than in the case of state-sponsored doping by Russia. It’s a long and twisted tale going back decades, but the McLaren Report, issued in 2016, made glaringly clear the massive doping of Russian athletes in many sports, particularly at the 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

Last September, WADA lifted the suspension of the Russian national team, in a good-faith gesture intended to get cooperation from the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to submit data and samples for WADA’s inspection. At this moment in mid-February 2019, the suspension remains lifted, despite:

• RUSADA’s failure to provide data and samples by the December 31^st date stipulated by WADA as being in compliance;
• Now that, as of mid-January, the data and samples are finally in WADA’s possession, they have not yet been authenticated, a task expected to take months;
• Russia has not admitted to state-sponsored doping, one of the conditions originally called for in order to put RUSADA in compliance and reinstate Russian athletes as part of a national team.

What part does the IOC play in this?