(from your url) "She did it after a two-year marathoning layoff, and 291 days after giving birth to Isla". when you see her picture, and knowing, from your previous post, that she trained up till the day she gave birth, she must have spent that extra time putting on weight so she *could* get pregnant. to my mind, bizarre, but, yes, she's one *dedicated* runner.
most of the posters aren't. in fact many just barely managed to cross the oprah line. still, you say that it was very hard and simultaneously very fulfilling. yet many seem to have to call some writer you have never heard of, obscene names. why? One person didn't cheer for you? but that was his very point!

Dude. You thought you were a "decent" HS runner because you ran a 20 min 5K as a teenager? Uh, that's nowhere near varsity level at my son's inner city high school. And you're slamming on Oprah?

You're mediocre as both a runner and a writer. AND you have a bad attitude. Maybe these things are related.

I'm a 40 year old female recreational runner. I just ran my first marathon last month. I smoked Oprah's time, Katie Holmes' time, and YOUR time. 4:03.

Maybe you should take up some other sport, one that doesn't make you so angry and resentful (and frankly, one for which you show some aptitude). You should definitely give up judging runners.

I think it's a feat just to finish a marathon. I'm still impressed if it takes two days. My attitude is: Don't forget, the first man to run a marathon dropped dead afterwards. yes that was a long time ago, but he still gave us a goal to shoot for. To survive!

...for the inspiration. It was nice to think that while I was running the marathon this weekend you were sulking at home, whining about your bum knee (guess what? you're not the only one with injuries! My doctor wouldn't let me run farther than ten miles the past month on account of mine) and imagining yourself paying a sweaty, chafing homage to the original running boom next spring.

Bill Rodgers was a huge influence on my taking up running six years ago-- for one thing, he doesn't buy into a distinction between "jogging" and "running" and for another, he is not an elitist prick, while still being elite. The former does not the latter make, which is something you might want to bear in mind.

I particularly loved the bit where you blamed the cancellation of the Chicago marathon on undertrained slowpokes who couldn't handle the heat, as if the only people who kick it during a marathon are slackers. Shame on Ryan Shay for showing his undertrained ass at the marathon trials this weekend--it wasn't even hot out.

I believe John Burroughs said it best: “A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.”

i got mine thirty years ago in an argument with a truck. my advice is, unless you have the health insurance to turn you into the bionic woman - Stop Running! (that is, if you like being able to walk)

Another reason is money: Elite athletes know they can make more playing professional organized team sports, so the culture encourages that.

One example is the college football player Michael Oher, described in the book Moneyball. He was an awesome raw talent with the discus in high school, but is devoted to football because it's where the money is.

I couldn't disagree more with McClelland.

I'm one of those hard-core trail runners who competes in grueling long-distance races up and down steep mountains, and a former college ski racer/cross-country runner. In some circles, I'm considered an elite athlete. And yes, I do understand that in certain events, there may be a compelling safety reason to vet the entries.

But McClelland is all wet with his idea that there's something wrong with average citizens taking on the challenge of a marathon, triathlon or most other athletic events. He's also all wet with the idea that it's some great national tragedy that Americans no longer dominate the marathon on the world stage.

To the latter, I say, who cares? I'd rather have all U.S. citizens getting up off the couch and running, or biking, or skiing, or skating, or walking, or whatever, to the best of their ability -- even if that means that they're doing so slowly or ploddingly -- than have any more gold medals go to U.S. marathoners, or as a matter of fact, to any elite U.S. athletes. Gold medals and championships are overrated, and overall public health and fitness seems to be underrated.

In some ways, after all, this is a debate pitting the regular folks against the elite. I'm on the side of the regular folks. Also, there are plenty of admirable stories out there in the back of the pack, like those of cancer survivors or car-crash victims who are building back their strength. Sometimes, the back-of-the-pack athletic accomplishments are the most impressive.

(Besides, I still don't understand how in the heck Oprah and other amateurs can possibly "wreck" the marathon for those elite runners who are, after all, far ahead of them on the course.)

And one of the reasons so many people in this country grew up hating gym and exercise in general is because too many P.E. teachers made teaching the most talented students their priority, not teaching _everyone_ to improve their skills.

Deering is right. I avoided physical activity my first two and a half decades of life because I was inept at sports and thought my time was better spent on the activities I was good at (showing that good ole competitive spirit, dear Dear Mr. McClelland).

In my 30s, I started gaining the middle-aged spread and realized I needed some kind of physical activity to keep my weight down. That's when I discovered that with sports, it didn't need to be a competition with other people -- it could be a competition with yourself. I'll never be a competitive athlete but I enjoy jogging and I've completed more marathons than you, Mr. McClelland.