Opinions are like assholes: according to a recent study, if you slice
them thinly enough and deep fry them, no one will be able to tell them apart
from calamari.
I shit you not:
Okay, “This American Life” is not Fermilab but I might stick to
cooking my own calamari from here on out…
So while I admit that opinions are just opinions, this is a blog and
thus the proper place for me to share mine. And seriously, can you have a blog
about an endurance sport and not mention Lance Armstrong this week?
So here’s my take:
Surviving cancer and working tirelessly to benefit cancer research and to support
victims of cancer does not mitigate the fact that he doped to win his cycling
stuff but neither does the fact that he cheated at his sport tarnish the good
he has done for those living with cancer.
Also the sport of cycling is not a victim of Lance’s cheating. They set
this up for themselves. Here’s where I need to stop talking about cycling and
start talking about running. I don’t know enough about cycling as a sport to
have an intelligent opinion so I’ll talk about running and hope that there is
some parallel.
I've won maybe $500 in prize money, some gift cards, a few pairs of
shoes, a free entry or two and a 6 month gym membership in the entire 10 year
span since I ran my first race. So let’s say that in the average year I win:
$50 cash, a $25-$50 gift card, the laces from a pair of running shoes and a few
coupons for free ice cream. Clearly not enough to offset the annual cost of ~10
pairs of trainers, 1-2 pairs of racing flats, 10-16 race entry fees, coaching
fees and an indoor track membership.
It cannot be more obvious that I’m not in this for the money, but
pretending I was and I was thinking PEDs:
If I kept my training the same and started blood doping or taking HGH
or something, maybe I could improve enough to win $1000 per year in prize money
which probably wouldn't even cover the added cost of the drugs. If I quit my
job so that I could train harder and I started taking some sort of PED, maybe I
could bring in $30,000-$40,000 per year. It just doesn't make much sense to
take a >50% pay cut and give up my health insurance to take a banned
substance for a shot at a running career which couldn't possibly last more than
a few years.
That’s where just about all of us runners are. We don’t make money off
of running and we can’t even improve enough with PEDs to win enough money to
make it worth our while. If there’s no financial incentive is there some other
incentive? I would argue no. Let’s be honest here: no one cares that I ran a
16:55 at a 5k last fall. Running sub 17 matters only to me because of how hard
I needed to work to get there. If I took some PEDs and ran a 15:55 it would still be too slow
for anyone else to care and the PR wouldn't have been as fulfilling because I
would know I hadn't done the work.
The elite level professional runners (and I assume cyclists) are
different. When Meb won the NYC marathon in 2009 he had a lead of 41 seconds
over second place finisher Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot. That works out to a
difference in pace of less than 1 second per kilometer. What is the difference
in prize money between first place and second place in New York? $65,000.
I finished the Manchester City Marathon in 3:17:30 in 78th
place for my PR this past fall. Had I been 1 second per kilometer faster I
would have finished in 3:16:48 and still would have been in 78th
place. I still would not have won an age group medal or anything else.
Cheruiyot took home $65,000 less than he would have if he had been able
to run 1 second per kilometer faster. With the stakes changed from a slightly
different PR and no change in field placement to a check for $65k (actually exchanging his $65k check for the $130k one that Meb took home) it isn't hard to imagine that those elite athletes are looking at PEDs a little differently
than the rest of us.
Lance was an elite athlete and for elite athletes it is all about the
money. Unfortunately, if you’re not doing whatever you can to get that money
then you’re doing it wrong.
For us amateur runners, it is all about icicles forming in our beards. If you’re not coming home from your long run with your beard caked with ice then you’re doing it wrong. Your biggest mistake
is probably not having a beard. You should get on that.
Ladies: they sell hats with built in beards so that you don’t have to
take BEDs (beard enhancing drugs) to grow your own: http://www.beardhead.com/
In case you’re wondering, I’m not the only one who thinks you need a
beard to be a badass runner:
Lowell’s own Nate Jenkins made this list; here’s him showing off his beard...and also running a race.
 |
| This is Shalane Flanagan showing off her Wicked Running Club pride. No beard though so she should invest in one of those beard hats. |
In 2012, I think that part of my problem was sticking to racing
mustaches:
Running with a handlebar for the New Bedford Half Marathon and the Olde-Timey Inventor for the Cape.
In 2013, the beard is making a comeback.
So my takeaways from the whole Lance Armstrong doping thing are:
- Grow a beard.
- If you are incapable of growing your own beard, it is permissible to purchase one to wear while running.
- If your fried calamari tastes funny, don't say I didn't warn you.
- Amateur racing > Professional Racing.
- Beards > Mustaches > Face Tattoos > Beards…think of it like facial Rock-Paper-Scissors every time you meet someone new.
Until next time:
May your training miles be ever
hilly and may all your races have free beer!
No comments:
Post a Comment