Jun 15, 2004 Penguin Bashing By Laurel Park :: Views- 159

I've seen some debate recently about whether races should have a "minimum time requirement"; that is, a cut-off point beyond which runners would not be permitted to participate, maybe five and a half hours for a marathon or an hour for a 10K. The impetus for the idea probably has something to do with keeping roads closed or staffing aid stations and finish lines, and I can see the point. It's hard enough to find volunteers without the prospect of having them spend several hours at their posts (not to mention the costs of keeping roads open and hiring police to oversee intersections and all the other details that come with putting on a race). But I also think that idea is a slap in the face to people who want to get out there and for whatever reason need more than five and a half hours to finish a marathon or sixty minutes to finish a 10K. Some might argue that if you need that long to finish a marathon you shouldn't be running it, but my own feeling is, why not? You might not want to enter a small race where you'll be a mile behind the runner ahead of you, but if you're willing to do the training and pay your entry fee, you should be welcome. Of course, some races are restricted by city ordinance or such to the amount of time they can keep the course "closed," but I suspect those races simply ask the slower participants to move to sidewalks or the edge of the street. They don't ban them entirely.

On a deeper level, I think the issue has something to do with the concept of what defines a race. I recall a couple of years ago there was quite a bit of debate on various running websites about whether people who were participating in the "Team-in-Training" or other charity training events should be given guaranteed spots at certain high-profile marathons, effectively blocking out "legitimate" runners. Realizing that the majority of "Team-in-Training" participants were running their first marathons and had goals of simply finishing, some angry writers suggested that T-in-T put on its own marathon expressly for those who wanted to complete the distance - no competitive elements at all. After completing that first one, if they wanted to train harder and be competitive, then they could enter a "mainstream" event. While I can see that merits of that argument, particularly when it comes to marathons that have qualification standards (Boston) or size restrictions (Marine Corps), I'm not sure that I entirely agree with it. Are these people really much different from Jane Doe in the suburbs who wakes up on her 40 th birthday and decides that this is the year she'll finally enter a marathon? Should certain popular races have a section on the application (just above the waiver so it's sure to be seen) that states: "Warning! This is a competitive event. The purpose of this race is to focus your mental and physical capacities on covering the distance between the start and the finish as fast as you possibly can. No coasting, no "enjoying the moment," no shallow satisfaction by simply finishing. If you do not intend to kick as many supplex-clad butts as possible, don't even think about entering." I know I certainly wouldn't enjoy the moment if I were afraid of being accosted by the Pace Police.

Two people have become twin "lightning rods" for the anti-slow movement: Jeff Galloway and John "The Penguin" Bingham. Galloway is a world-class marathoner who now promotes marathon success for the average runner through his method of regularly scheduled walk breaks, a system that has come to be known on the various running message boards (with great disdain) as "Gallowalking." Bingham, a former poster child for coronary disease, has developed an enthusiastic following of velocity-challenged runners known as "the Penguin Brigade," based on his popular Runner's World column "The Penguin Chronicles." Penguins, as the name implies, are not interested in how fast they can go, but rather whether they can go. In the eyes of some people, Galloway and Bingham embody all that is wrong with American distance running today: Satisfaction with mediocrity, an unwillingness to push oneself and work hard, and an over-inflated sense of accomplishment for doing just enough to get by. No wonder American runners lag behind the world's best when they are constantly exposed to role models like these.

At the risk of sounding like a third-grade teacher - can't we all just play together nicely? There is enough room in this sport for everyone. While I understand the concerns of people who fear that we are developing a generation of slackers, I think there are a sufficient number of motivated people to keep the competitive element of racing alive and well. Children in particular are competitive by nature. As for adults, based upon my own experiences, there are an awful lot of competitive people of all ages still out there. Admittedly, not everyone wants to compete. Not everyone should compete. For many people, just getting out and moving is enough. Whether they cover that 10K in thirty minutes or sixty minutes doesn't matter. And judging from the number of obese adults and children that I see every day, I don't think anyone should be dissuaded from trying a little exercise, regardless of how long it takes or whether it involves scheduled walk breaks.

I know a lot of people whose fastest days are behind them - and some who never really had fastest days - yet by golly they seem to wring as much pleasure from their running as the greyhounds at the front of the pack. Satisfaction comes in many forms. For some it is winning or setting a new PR. For others it is simply breaking a sweat and enjoying the effort. Both are valid in my eyes. Both are worthy of support. And who knows - that five hour penguin may surprise you and transform herself into a three hour whippet. But that definitely won't happen unless she gets the chance to try.