Enjoyable. I ran track and cross-country in high school and college in the early sixties, well in advance of aerobics, then returned to running for the rest of my life. Roger Bannister, first to break the 4-minute mile, was my hero. I ran 3.75 miles in 20 minutes in cross-country once, once ran a 4:45 mile. I was entirely mediocre even back then, and knew it. And man do I remember those racing flats. No cushion at all.

I think excessive competition is a sickness--there are far more effective and less damaging paths to excellence--but I do love to see people do things better than anyone else.

It would be hard not to applaud any exercise on the part of porksters, but since there are more and more porksters, one suspects that something is not working.

I do not attribute the tendency to athletics alone, however. All of America has become stunningly tolerant of mediocrity. It is treated as the same as accomplishment. After all, I did my best!

I am a writer (I found one of my areas of excellence). Instead of going after Oprah for what she did to the marathon, I am more inclined to go after the mediocrity she promotes as worthwhile writing.

What's the logical connection between ordinary people running and athletes not winning? Just because two things happen to occur, that doesn't mean that they are causally connected.

The silliness of that reasoning nettles me.

should sue your collective ass for defamation of character.

"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."

Thank you, Kurt Vonnegut--we have seen the future.

This article is even more idiotic given Ryan Hall and others' performance in the trials this morning!

Better to do something poorly than to watch others do it well.

If you can't be an elite runner, you can at least suck up to them by insulting those who aren't, and dare to take part anyway?

Way to go, Ed...I think I'll write something about how many people shouldn't be biking...then, maybe Lance Armstrong will think I'm cool.

I don't run, but I think any overweight average joe who gets off the couch, plods along a marathon course, and even tries to finish it is damn brave....braver than someone sitting on his ass at a keyboard, at any rate. Even if you don't think he deserves to be out there.

Perhaps McClelland could encourage cities to organize dual marathons - one for his little clique, and another for the rest of the sophomore class. His rant reminds me of some of the worst aspects of adolescent social life.

Has this country's marathoning spirit been trampled by hordes of joggers whose only goal is to stagger across the finish line?...To schoolboys who raced three miles, the marathon was a rigorous, forbidding distance -- an extreme sport, like mountaineering.

I've never heard such truly pointless whining. As another letter writer said, it's very clear that McClelland used to feel special for being able to run a marathon, and now he doesn't feel special anymore because it turns out it's not actually that hard if you're dedicated to the training. Which is to say, he never was that special. So now he's sad, and so, so whiny.

Man, if you want to run to win, then run to win. People who win marathons run at literally twice the speed of those who "merely" finish marathons (5 minute miles vs. 10 minutes miles, give or take), which means that after 10 minutes, you will literally be beyond the horizon from the slavering hordes, and you won't have to deal with them anymore. But please never write on this subject again.

Mr. McClelland's article may contain a grain of truth worth discussing, but the insulting, condescending and self-aggrandizing tone really diminished the import of any point he may have been trying to make. I suppose it's an opinion piece and he's certainly entitled to his opinion, however elitist and ultimately counterproductive I and others clearly find it, but by presenting this put-upon screed as a "feature" -- in the guise of honest-to-God journalism -- Salon.com seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator it so often derides. Disappointing.

You know: the "We are not joggers" ads, the "run like an animal" bullshit, the finger-pointing at soccer moms who don't run like they're being chased by the cops or a hungry tiger. Christ. Get over yourselves. My son trained for a year to run the Marine Corps Marathon. It took him over four hours. Right, he is not crazy-fast, he will never grow into being Alberto Salazar, and if he knows about Bingham (I do because he's an inspiration to me), he probably goes along with him. Just go out and run. If you think we're a bunch of amateurs violating the purity of your sport, the words for the day are Tough Shit. It does not necessarily "feel good" to do a marathon in 4+ hours: it hurts, cramps, aches, and all that other stuff. Who are you to be an elitist about your sport? Who are you to dictate or be critical about those awful people who go out and spend $100+ on running shoes and technical shirts? Let's all fool you: go out in Converse basketball shoes. Then when we blow out our arches we can have the orthopedist send you the bill.

Oh yeah...I jog. Kiss my ass.

Yo Ed - Salon is actually stupid enough to pay you for this drivel? Since when is athletics only about 'winning'? And who gives a rat's arse whether Americans win another Olympic marathon or any other for that matter (not me). Its not about YOU although the article sure looks like it.

I doubt I'll ever run a marathon so you don't have to worry about me slowing everything down, but its not because I can't be competitive - its because I don't find running fun. Participating in group activities such as a marathon is a lot more about winning, whatever that is. Just getting up and trying it is a victory for many. By your standards you need to get out of journalism because clearly, based on this article, you're certainly no winner - in fact we could make a good case that you are actually contributing to lowering the literacy standards of online journalism!