McClelland appreciates the difficulty not of simply running in a race, but of racing in a race. Sure, anyone can run a given distance. Whether they run it quickly is another story. For someone who runs with a decent finishing time in mind, this elitist opinion clouds all others.

McClelland's disdain for the emergence of the "self-improvement" mentality (versus the "need-for-speed" mindset) is understandable given the attitude toward marathoning that existed when he ran in high school. However, it makes me wonder at what pace is someone "allowed" to participate in this daunting race? Obviously, he doesn't think it's good enough to simply beat Oprah's time (I notice he barely squeaked by in his own attempt). Clearly, one is not a "real" marathoner if they skip the competitive training regimen and don their cushiony running shoes (which, I also notice, McClelland seems to have done in the past).

The moral of McClelland's marathon ranting is that if you can't take the marathon as seriously as he does, don't bother to run it. Which, incidentally, doesn't seem to be all that serious when until now. The acceptably decent 5K runner admitted failing to devote appropriate training to the marathon, and compared to Oprah he narrowly escape his own criticism. He did exactly then what he criticizes now: the marathon amateur who simply wants to put 26.2 behind him without striving for a commendable race time.

It's not as though the marathon is easy to run, no matter how much one has trained. But, according to McClelland, if you're doing it for that "feel-good" sense of achievement, don't waste time on "real" runners' courses. Behind excusing himself for knee problems, I wonder if McClelland thinks he's exempt from his own pessimistic attitude toward the wanna-be marathoners out there.

I can hardly believe that this article was even published, or taken seriously by anyone....except it's the dark ages now in American culture and so this is par for the course, to use a sports metaphor. I hate sports. I hate the persistent and damaging myth that competition is somehow an elevated, good thing. As other writers have already said, it just supports the existence of an elite class of physical freaks who offer little to the world, if anything.

This guy shows his stripes (baseball metaphor I assume) when he refers to Oprah as a middle aged woman dragging her flab around. That's the stupidest, most offensive thing I've read in ages. I could not care less about these types of races, but I'm glad that non-elite bodies are getting out there and crossing personal boundaries that have to do with health, strength, and spirit, rather than useless competition -- a bunch of juvenile over-trained men showing off.

I know a lot of people who run. Some of them have beautiful, healthy bodies, and they make running into a practice that is inspiring as a form of outreach and vision. Others race in wheelchairs, and I celebrate their pleasure in speed and freedom of movement.

I'm physically disabled. I move through the world mainly by means of language. I'm not competing with anyone. I'm happy that some people like to run and are able to do it as a communal practice, encouraging their running mates rather than just trying to "beat" them.

We have more than enough aggression in the world.

I'm not a huge Oprah fan, but she's trying to help. She luxuriates in her money and power a bit too much for my taste, but she helps people too. She's not out there representing any national fantasy, or political agenda, or corporate sport. She's trying to maintain her weight and to show other women (and men) that it's possible to overcome personal struggles of all kinds.

That's ok by me. I have better things to do with my precious time, in my insignificant opinion, than run (or limp) around trying to go faster than other creatures. I'm trying to be a better a person. Atheletes are boring. Let them all go read a book, just as fast as they can.

Who do you think you are? Yeah sure, blame the whole thing on your knee, you little baby. Not everyone ran track or cross country in high school, you stupid jerk. Realize that those slow runners are often times the reason for medical advances. It's not in everyone's genes to be an elite athlete, so why take the feeling of accomplishment away from non-elite runners. So what if you don't approve. And maybe this will make you feel different coming from a sub 3:30 marathoner, you jackass. Also, not everyone starts at the top of their game. My first half marathon was a 2:29, which I've brought down to a 1:27 over the years. The only people that deserve to be bashed are the walkers that start at the front of the races, and people like you.

I wouldn't say that I agree 100% with Opera "ruining" the marathon, but the general "just try to finish" mentality makes no sense to me. It is a race, and thus it should be about doing your best. If you train hard (not necessarily 100 miles a week or even 6 days a week or whatever) and really give it your best, and still run a "slow" time, then that's fine. You gave it your best, and that's what should matter. Sure, most of us won't, and can't, be sub 2:10 guys. But most male "marathoners" won't be sub 3:00 guys either, which, if given the proper training, many could. Would this be easy? Hell no. But that's what makes it worth while. One of my proudest achievements on the track came in a race where I got second, despite having won some "bigger" races. When I first started out as a runner, I'd finish near the back, even dead last on occasion, but I pushed on, made it hurt, and when I started to improve, those precious seconds brought me the greatest joy in the world. I know I'll never make an Olympic team, but I have goals, both realistic and not, that I want to achieve. Some involve races 4-5 months away, others 3-4 years on the horizon, and 10 and 20 years down the line there are still things I want to do. And though I'm going to put my body through hellish pain, utter fatigue, etc, I know that the moment I run what is, for me, a "great race," it will be worth it.

Now, does this mean that you should only run if you are going to dedicate your life to it? No way. Some of my best friends with amazing talent levels gave it up after highschool, and now train maybe 50% to 0% what they did before, and thats fine. You do what you enjoy. Maybe you like that feel of getting out on the trails or roads for 20-30 minutes a day, 4-5 days a week. Awesome! Go for it. And if you enter your local 10k or marathon or whatever, best of luck to you. But it's just when people who barely train to "finish" a marathon (or 10k or whatever, but usually it's a marathon) equate their "performance" to, say, whomever won or beat them by two hours, then they just don't understand the concept of competition and sport. Many of us like to go out and shoot hoops once and a while, maybe play some pickup basketball with friends or whomever at the local court. That's all well and good, and no NBA star is going to say that you shouldn't or that you are taking away from the sport. But people who do this clearly wouldn't put their completion of a basketball game on par with competing in the NBA. Why the difference between running and basketball (or any other "major" sport)? People like Opera and groups like TIT, perhaps. The "everyone is a winner" mentality, which isn't even the "everyone is a winner if they try" mentality. So if you want to go out there and run a marathon, by all means go for it. Prepare properly, be smart, and give it your all. But don't equate yourself to a Ryan Hall or a Haile G just for finishing. And don't feel that you have to.