'Mum calls for fell running race equality' from Westmorland Gazette http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....race_equality/
img003.jpg
'Mum calls for fell running race equality' from Westmorland Gazette http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....race_equality/
img003.jpg
It's an interesting point, and I've raised a few related issues over the years.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Reading the article it does seem that they agree and will be changing it in the future. It is a fair point. I think it is something that is changing to equality in prizes though as so it should.
Surely true equality, sexist, ageist, .. would be just 3 prizes for 1st, 2nd and 3rd, females and vets have all won races so why not.
Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run
If you related prizes to the size of the prize "pot" (ie, how many people the winners are competing against in their field), ladies would get much lower-value prizes because typically there are about 5-10 times more blokes running than women. Having said that, most blokes agree with the general principle that women deserve equality of prizes, so you should probably count the total prize pot as one. And personally, I agree: the first female should get the same value prize as the first male.
Where it would be hard to enforce equality is where you've got multiple prizes for categories - for example some races give prizes down to 10th man. If you did that for the ladies field, you might be giving prizes to every lady who ran. In this case, I think the numbers of prizes within each category should reflect the size of the field within the category.
You could take the argument one stage further and also apply this logic to age categories. In many local races, there is only one V70, yet they get a prize for winning that category. I guess it would be too complicated for organisers to have rules such as "a prize for any age/sex category with at least 3 people in it". Also, as with equality of female prizes, most people are happy for some of their £3-6 to go towards a prize for age category prizes, even if there are only a few of them.
Noel,
Your posts are always worth reading.
I've done a few fell races over the last 30+ years and even won the odd First Vet. Category prize and my view has generally been "the RO is always right and if you don't like anything about his/her event then stay away and put your own race on instead."
And then wait for the complaints from the selfish, the ungrateful, the self-centred, the whingers, etc
Your comment about "only one V70" begs the question of "meaningful competition". There is some FRA history to this nebulous concept and all will be revealed in the fourth and final part of A Sense of Perspective.
I advise you to order your copy of The Fellrunner now.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
Male and Female prizes should be equal for the first 3 at least.
As for Vet prizes, I take the approach that if a V50 beats a V40 the V50 gets the V40 prize and the V40 gets nowt.
Dan Wilkinson - Ilkley Harriers
If you're looking for equality then everyone (male or female) should be treated the same for the race they are running.
So in a race consisting of males and females you would have to give prizes out for simply the positions in the race eg 1st., 2nd, 3rd etc irrespective of gender. Unless you're a very fast female it's unlikely that you would receive a prize, but that is because everyone in the race is treated equally.
Alternatively you could have a male only race and a female only race and give prizes to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc for each race. That would be equality.
But then we get on to the value of the prizes as Noel has already mentioned. The prizes for the ladies race would be significantly less based on the funds received from female entry fees.
For me, leave it as it is, life can get too complicated. Oh, and I don't mind the ladies looking at my bum :-)
See the light in the night