Nuff said.

And somebody pointed out McClelland's lack of originality about twelve hours before you did.

Last I remembered, the faster runners start ahead of the slower runners? And, as far as I know, no new law of aerodynamics has been discovered that prove slower runners provide a "drag" on the fast runners? So why not title your article in a way that reflects your only point: "We fast runners are superior to you slow ones?"

There is one thing that running races is supposed to teach us - there is only one winner and everyone else in the race is a loser.

How dare fat and out of shape people take that away from the winners?

The nerve of that Oprah Winfrey stealing all the glory that should belong to one person and one person alone.

My heart bleeds peanut butter.

How about a Marathon on Segways? That would be way cool.

Why aren't Americans better at, say, rugby? Not enough people participate.

Why aren't Americans better at the marathon? Too many people participate?

This is idiotic. I'm sorry Mr. McClelland's fantasy about American sports dominance is ruined by the participation of millions of people actually enjoying amateur sports.

I know a lot of people who run. I don't know any who don't take pride in setting personal bests. And yes, for some people a 4 1/2 hour marathon is an achievement.

I an country where obesity is becoming a growing problem even among children, I'm disheartened to see Salon publishing an article critical of ordinary people who have gone to great lengths to get themselves in shape, even when they know that they'll never be world-class.

So you ran in school, that makes you a serious runner? I loved going down to first avenue in NYC and cheering on the "amateurs". I'd rather watch people who are challenging themselves, who usually have stressful jobs and families to support, than the "elite" runners on steroids!

Also a bigger problem in this country is that every article has to have a celebrity attached to it.

I like Salon, but this article somehow missed the mark. Is Oprah also responsible for crappy journalism?

Dislaimer: I am not a runner.

STOP YER WHININ'.

Run your 'efin 36 or whatever it is miles....ALL BY YOURSELF - you'll gain the same pain.

Why does it have to be such a mofo commercial production?

How is this piece any different than any pathetic nostalgia piece where some White guy who doesn't like geting old whines about how things used to be better? Gosh, remember, record players? Remember muscle cars? Remember the Brooklyn Dodgers? Weren't they great? Things suck now, don't they? I blame cassette tapes/Ford Pintos/the Yankees for ruining EVERYTHING. Boohoohoo.

And Oprah ruined the marathon. LOL.

Also the writing is bad. It reads like a cranky blog post someone dashed off during their lunch break. Only, yanno, without any of the amateur charm.

Over the past few years, since the 2d running boom of the mid-90s, the so called "Oprah Boom," people have made complaints similar to yours, implying that the declining fortunes of America's elite distance runners are somehow tied to marathon's increasing popularity as not a sport but a fitness endeavor.

First of all, one might more plausibly attribute the condition of American distance running to the abandonment of the group training methods of the 70s/early 80s. Today, nationalities that have seen most success in the event train as a team. The Brooks-Hansen runnering project, which trains Brian Sell et al, is an attempt to revive this method.

Secondly, Ryan Hall is only 25, a young age for marathoners, and one has to keep in mind that he smoked a 2:08 in London last April--his first marathon.

Thirdly, nothing's stopping the recreational runners for whom the marathon is still a race from training 60-80 mi/wk. They will simply finish ahead of the trotters merely jogging to complete 26.2

Finally, it's true that for many the marathon is therapeutic, more "inspiration" than sweat-band, blister, and jock-strap perspiration. Completing a marathon often marks major life transformations for people -- losing weight, overcoming addictions, beating cancer. If you've run a major marathon in the last 10 years you'd have to be callous not to notice this, sympathize with it, and, yes, applaud it.

How does it hurt my performance if I want to run sub-3 and others are aiming for sub-5? I'll be in a start corral ahead of them, running a totally different race.

I was, like, huh?

Real Americans don't compete. They sit around drinking Lite Beer, eating non-fat processed cheese food, and watch stuff on TV.

Been that way since 1956.

See http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinventions/a/remote_control.htm

And THAT'S exactly what's wrong with America. You have it backwards.

Competition isn't important ENOUGH? There's something wrong with another American getting off their couches and actually moving their bodies 26 miles without an SUV involvled? And then feeling good about it?

Something's wrong with you, too, Buster.

This argument reminds me of the arguments against gay marriage: If we permit gay marriage it endeangers the "marriage institution". Maybe the top runners are just lazy and don't see any money like in other sports so they don't run, it's not that more people are getting into running that is the problem. How are the hordes impinging on faster top runners from kicking ass?

"I think people are missing the tone of the article, i.e. it's intended to be semi-humorous."

If I missed the intent of the writer, that's the WRITER'S fault.

And I doubt your comment here is valid. The tone of this article was established in its TITLE.

Well, he got hella COMMENTS to wade through for his little article. No doubt THAT was his REAL intent.

I have never agreed with so many Salon letter writers!!!! Go team.

Some people will do ANYTHING to sidle their toned, muscular rump up to Oprah's.

Tomorrow, we'll find out that this essay is the equivalent of a movie character standing in the middle of the road wailing that he will not drink Merlot or another refusing a lift because the driver insisted on playing songs by the Eagles.

Right?

Due to an injury I've needed to use a crutch for the past couple of months. I've slogged my way through airports, listening to the exasperated sighs of the truly-busy-and-important who might not make it to their gate in order to use the only outlet to plug in a Palm, a phone and a computer and settle down to a session on Second Life.

So I sympathize with McClelland's bleat of the entitled male. Had he injured his knee, he probably would have crawled through O'Hare.

His rant, along with the tenderness of my fellow travelers on this mortal coil the past few months, has proved to me that the true feeling someone who can has toward someone who can't is not compassion, not the impulse to cheer on the least of us, not the reflex to offer help.

It's disgust.