I do not like mixed ethics: in this case allowing professional runners who ignore the ethos of support, but not allowing professional supporters is nothing short of bonkers.
It is arbitrary. Unnecessary. Vindictive. And achieves absolutely nothing for anyone. Other than making a committee "feel good" Situation normal in athletics committees generally. Does that make my position clear?
It also stops a few potential completers from doing so who do not have the connections. So who is the winner from this?
Athletics has been this way before, declaring some things professional others not to promote a warm fuzzy feeling in totally arbitrary fashion. Chariots of fire highlights the stupidity of banning professional support. Athletics got even worse from there before it got better. It never ends well.
The problem we had competing with the USSR in the seventies they were paid full time by the state, but not paid prize money. So they were deemed OK as amateurs. So were the full time coaches.
Just because they were not paid by event did not alter the fact they were paid.
Our athletes who relied on payment of prizes, or coaches paid direct by athletes were deemed professional. And barred. Or restriced. It is all the same in another guise. It is possible to define the world so clarify what is paid support. It does not make it any more sensible.
In the end all that matters did the person get round in the time, under own steam,witnessed or not?
They are just as deserving as anyone else who did the same. WHoever was with them.
If there was a problem to solve (take the pictures of the everest ridge with queueing because of commercialism) destroying the round because of paid supporters, that would need consideration on whether it is getting out of hand, although it would be hard to distinguish the pack from the same that dark peak send round! But these paid rounds are few and far between. So there is no problem to solve.
Let somebody else have a view.
Originally Posted by skipchris
Reply With Quote