This is un-bloody-believable, pardon the Sanskrit. A woman who won the Nike Women’s Marathon in San Francisco on Sunday (billed as the world’s largest women’s marathon), didn’t get to be on the winner’s podium because she wasn’t part of the group of ‘elite’ runners – who began 20 minutes ahead of the running proletariat – and was therefore not even considered for the awards. Then when she cross-checked, the organisers acknowledged that she’d been faster than the ‘elite’ winner by over *eleven* minutes, yet they wouldn’t give her the trophy. Finally, after public outcry – er, yes, she ran the fastest, so perchance, she should be the winner? – they are giving her a trophy, and recognising her as ‘a’ winner, not ‘the’ winner.
Sounds to me like Nike following in the dubious track of a certain US presidential race. Except in that case, if you’re the popular winner and you still lose the ‘elite’ vote (with some fudging), you don’t become Prez, but you might get a Nobel Prize instead.
You have it backwards! O’Connell is Al Gore and Colligan is Bush in this analogy. The RULES dictated that the first across the finish line wins, not the fastest net time as recorded by chips. And these aren’t just Nike’s rules, there are EVERY RACE’S RULES.
So, we don’t like that Gore lost the electoral college and so we’d like to change the rules, after the election has been held, and declare him “the” winner based upon some other criteria? That’s what you are proposing.
What is unbelievable is just how little you know about this bizarre case before you open your yap.
By George, methinks the man doth protest too much (and with not much grace either)!
Since you saw fit to comment on what I considered a throw-away post, I’m glad, because it offers me the chance to make a couple of substantive comments. First about the race itself. As someone interested in running, I do know race rules, and I’m not as concerned with a different category for ‘elite’ runners so that they run in relative comfort, ahead of the ‘pack’, though there are a couple of issues involved: in this case, it was a charity event for cancer and (ironically) women athletes, in which the elite runners were not really that ‘elite’ – in general elite women runners are finishing marathons in 2:20s and 2:30s – really the reason that Arien O’Connell didn’t put herself in that category in the first place, considering she’s an over 3 hour marathoner in general. Nike itself, as organiser, is now considering scrapping that category altogether for next year’s marathon; we have to see how it plays out in terms of organisation and rules. What I was particularly concerned with was on how Nike responded to the problem in itself; instead of acknowledging that the fastest should win – and possibly coming out of this with a fabulous Nike story of an unexpected race hero – its reps tried to fudge the problem over, without finesse or generosity. And finally, race rules themselves are being hotly debated over the running blogosphere; surely there should be a method – easily done in these computerised times – in which no matter where you might run (whether based on sex and age group categories, and/or your own levels of experience and modesty), you should have a chance at being considered for an overall win on the rather simple premise that if you run fastest, you win.
Secondly, coming out of that, about elections. Exactly how the electoral college vote went Bush’s way is still being debated, as you well know. Since we seem to come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, I won’t waste my breath going on about that – and it’s true, as an Indian, I find the electoral college system in itself baffling, though I understand its historical antecedents (I’m also strongly tempted to ask the Indian government to lend America a few EVMS – there is definitely arm-twisting of votes that can take place outside the polling booth in India, but at least once you’re inside it, you’re assured that the EVMs won’t mess up your choice!). Still, it’s not just me who thinks the system should be changed to reflect the popular American will; there is clearly a case to be made for electoral college reform, and here is a non-partisan, research institute’s view on it: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/reform/report_electoral.htm
Rules are not always ‘good’ rules; when they’re bad, they’re broke, and they should be changed. In case you need some history to clarify that, I only refer you to two: women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement.