Charity begins at home...but then take it on the road!

If you've been following along on my journey, you know I've been trying to get in as a charity runner for Boston 2014.  And, the journey hasn't been easy but it's for a worthwhile opportunity. At least, that's what I think.

And, then there are the haters.

There are those adamant that charity runners should not be allowed in any race, let alone the distinguished Boston marathon.

Believe it or not, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not charity runners "should" be allowed to run. All I know is that if there are designated spots for charity runners--who don't otherwise qualify--I'm going to try to get one.

Here are some of the arguments of those inclined to believe charity runners should stay at home.  Their reasoning? Boston, in particular, is an elite race and charity runners cheapen the medal.  They also believe that charity runners take up space that should otherwise go to "real" runners.  Some even believe that the money raised by charity runners goes to secure them a nice hotel and other race day amenities rather than to the charity's bottom line.

In fact, Chuck Engle, a well-known as the "Marathonjunkie" who has won the most marathons (as a sub 3-hour finisher) lashed out at the whole program of charity running, especially at Boston.  Although his blog article appears to have been removed, he apparently said charity running makes it a "rich man's sport" and that he's "sick of seeing things once regarded as sacred and challenging being auctioned off to those unworthy of such distinction."

Ouch.

Let's look at the flipside of each of the arguments noted above.

Do charity runners cheapen the sport?

In fact, that might appear to be the opposite--perhaps not in terms of the cache associated with certain races, but at least as it relates to the number of marathons that now take place.  Charity running has been said to have increased the interest in road races which has led to more opportunities for runners of all abilities, including those who can win cash prizes.  In an article published in Canadian Running, Kevin Mackinnon said, "The development of large marathons in the 1980's saw the number of participants double over a 10-year period.  A decade later participation had doubled again, which, according to many marathon experts was because of the steady growth of charity running groups."

In his blog, Engle said charity runner medals should have a distinction on them. I don't necessarily disagree.  If I have the opportunity to run, I would have no issue with my medal saying I ran in support of a particular charity.  What I have an issue with is Engle's judgment that because he ran fast enough to qualify, he is not just "buying the medal."   Perhaps there are some who could fork over several thousand dollars for the opportunity, but most charity runners must work doubly hard--to train AND raise a significant amount of dollars during the same period.  That doesn't seem like "buying the medal" to me.

Do charity runners take up space that should go to "real" runners?

Think about it.  If you're a race organizer, you want a successful race in every way imaginable, right?  One of those ways is community support.  What better way to drum up community support than by inviting community organizations to participate?  Not only do you get the numbers (although, admittedly in races such as Boston, the "numbers" aren't needed), but you also get significantly more support from the community in general and crowd support on race day.

That support spills over into the economy as well.  Marathons have been known to bring in huge tourist dollars for the cities who host them.

So, race organizers actually set aside a certain number of spots designated for charity runners. In a sense, these are in addition to the competitive runners, not a diminishing statistic.

How much money can be raised for charity?  Take a look at the prestigious London Marathon who has the largest number of charity entrants.  In 2013, this race netted $85 MILLION dollars for participating charities.  That's for one race less than six hours on one day.  To date, organizers say the London Marathon has raised more than $1 BILLION dollars.  That's something that should have people giving the thumbs up sign--not pointing fingers. (See my previous blog article, "A Runner, A Jogger and a Penguin walk into a bar" for more information on this.)

Do charity runners get extra perks that their donors pay for?

While I won't discount this has happened, it does not appear to be the norm.  In fact, based on my experience, a charity runner must pay application fees to be considered for each separate charity and then, if selected, pay the entrance fee and raise the minimum amount of money along with transportation and lodging fees.

I can attest to the fact that some teams get discounted hotels and other race perks, but I've been around charities long enough to know that they often have these services donated.  Again, I don't know for sure that all services are donated, but I'm betting it's more than a fair chance the charities aren't shelling out big bucks for any runner amenities.

In all, I get the argument against charity runners, but it appears that the benefit outweighs the cost in so many ways.  As one other blogger says, "We're all runners here."

Catch you at the back of the back....maybe at Boston, maybe not.  (And, if I do get to Boston, I figure there will be a huge lull between all the super fast runners who have qualified at the higher paces and me....waddling at the back!)   Stay tuned!