You'd rather keep the "wrong" sort of people out and feel superior to them criticizing their poor fitness.

How dare they try to improve themselves, albeit, not as perfectly as you. If they do improve themselves, who will you have to feel superior to?

jerk

"Everything's got to be the Race for the Cure". I never understood the connection. You want to give money for research into breast cancer, but won't do it unless some woman runs herself into exhaustion? Wouldn't four hours spent nagging the NIH be more effective?

As a Chicago runner, I have seen Oprah and her very large ass waddling along the lakefront running path many times. And I have only one thing to say: Good for her! If she and John Bingham are an inspiration to others to get off the couch, lace up a pair of running shoes and live a healthier lifestyle then we should praise her, not condemn her for having the guts take up marathoning. Hopefully for Oprah and those that follow her, it will lead them to a lifetime of healthy lifestyle choices. While one can certainly argue whether logging 26.2 miles in over four-and-a-half hours should be considered "running" a marathon, everyone that sacrifices and trains and has the guts to toe the line to challenge themselves to run 26.2 should be celebrated and encouraged.

There are three different marathons run on race day: 1) the elites racing for victory or to qualify for the Olympic trials, 2) the Boston Marathon qualifiers; serious citizen runners who train extremely hard to try to qualify for America's premier marathon, and 3) average citizen runners whose goal is to do their best and finish the marathon. This last group comprises over 95% of the field in most marathons. These people are an inspiration for friends and family and non-athletes everywhere - not because of their finishing times, but because they had the courage to challenge themselves to train, start and finish the race.

So don't blame them for the fact that elite runners from the U.S. can't compete with the Kenyans, etc. Those issues lie at the doorstep of those who run U.S Track & Field. Until U.S. distance runners train like Kenyans and Ethiopians and Morroccans, etc - including from very early ages - they will simply not be able to compete on the world marathoning stage. And that has nothing to do with Oprah and those that waddle behind her.

...and she would leave your snotty, self-absorbed ass in the dust:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2007/11/05/2007-11-05_with_baby_in_attendance_paula_radcliffe_-2.html

The problem is that you are no longer able to compete and are whining about it in public, ya big baby.

I can understand the frustration of the writer--nothing increases one's appreciation for something than suddenly not being able to do it. How could McClelland not sit by, watching thousands of people with opportunity he wants but can't have failing to live up to their competitive potential, and be frustrated about it? It's human nature, we can all relate.

But perhaps a better tone for the article would have been, "come on, get competitive, America!" instead of "these people are ruining the sport".

Mainly because it probably just isn't true. The "average finishing time" quoted in the story is pretty much meaningless, because all it means is that more less-adept runners are running--it doesn't mean the best times are declining, which would be the only thing which could support his case, and no evidence is presented for that.

American runners' best times do seem to have plateaued, with only a few Americans having bested Salazar's best time from 1982, but the best American times have still come in the last few years. In that case, what is the concern--that we're not best in the world, or that our average isn't good enough? What would be "good enough" isn't made clear.

Another point to make is that McClelland is somewhat overstating how far back the top American is from the world record. Ryan Hall may be in 255th place, but the difference between his time and the world record is just 4 minutes. As with most sports, the margin for world records is getting thinner than it was decades ago. And Hall's personal record came earlier this year--further undermining the concept of a decline, as he's now the fastest American-born marathon runner in history.

How America approaches competitive activity is a very worthwhile topic for analysis; the recreational-participatory approach that has opened up all kinds of endeavor, from art to music to athletics, to a kind of mediocritization by accessibility. But a piece like this should probably be either more personal or more objective. It seems like it opened up a lot of discussion, though, so that's a good thing.

Statistics show that the majority of these "new" runners entering marathons are women. In fact, in some large marathons, the majority of the runners (not "walkers" or "staggerers" but RUNNERS) are women. Perhaps this is what really bothers McClelland. He longs for the good old days when race officials physically pulled women off the course. Those early races also had no water stations or toilets. Or is he too manly to need those progressive amenities?

What a ridiculous article. Some people like to train and exercise for a challenge. Ever try running for 4 hours? Good for them and Oprah. So it’s better to stay out of these “races” for the “real” or “serious” runners? I trained my ass off to run the Marine Corps Marathon, and I was fulfilled to finish the race at my “Oprah Line”!

What a bunch of self-righteous nonsense you jackhole!

I don't think that the elite few who run marathons at Olympic-like times are too bothered by the other thousands of amateurs (aren't they all amateurs, even the elite runners?) running alongside them. They still break away from the pack and finish in record times and fulfill their goals of qualifying for the Olympics.

The sentiments expressed in this letter remind me of new wave music fans who loved the Talking Heads when they were still a cult phenomenon, but then they couldn't be bothered to listen to the band after it achieved popular success.

It's still the same 26 miles being run, and it's still the same Talking Heads band. It's would-be insiders like McClelland whose profound narcissism results in their changed opinions.