You Say Participants, I Say Registrants
And we're all suppose to just accept it!
I'll get the obligatory comment post or e-mail that will say I'm splitting hairs over nothing or I'll get one that says, "Quit complaining and just go run."
My problem is on page 27 of the latest edition (May 2006) of "Running Times".
It is the Chevron Houston Marathon advertisement - smack dab in the middle of an article titled, "Guide to choosing your first [or next] marathon," that names Houston as a "fast" marathon and a "no hassle" one as well - and the first bullet point that says, "17,779 participants."
The front of the marathon's web site says, "17,779 registrants make record-breaking attendance, performances" and the press release on a nearby link says, "With a record prize purse of $172,900, an unprecedented 17,779 runners competed in the Chevron Houston Marathon, Aramco Houston Half Marathon and Houston Press/Smart Financial 5K, breaking last year’s record and reaching the field limit in both the marathon and half marathon races."
We can tell from looking at the results that 14,767 were official finishers -- 5,414 in the marathon, 7,351 in the half marathon and 2,002 in the 5K.
So what the Chevron Houston Marathon is trying to tell you is that 3,012 individuals picked up their packet, showed up on race day, participated and didn't finish.
Unless, of course ... the definition of participation has changed.
Sure and I suppose the definitions of sex and weapons of mass destruction have changed too.
I agree with the rankings that writer Ryan Staurt and team put together as well as the gaudy ranking that "Marathon and Beyond" bestowed on the event in their November/December 2005 edition.
It is a great event -- although the half marathon is overpriced at $50 a head -- and it is "fast" and pretty much "no hassle."
So why then does the Chevron Houston Marathon choose to include a material distortion of the facts in an effort to promote their event?
I'll get the obligatory comment post or e-mail that will say I'm splitting hairs over nothing or I'll get one that says, "Quit complaining and just go run."
My problem is on page 27 of the latest edition (May 2006) of "Running Times".
It is the Chevron Houston Marathon advertisement - smack dab in the middle of an article titled, "Guide to choosing your first [or next] marathon," that names Houston as a "fast" marathon and a "no hassle" one as well - and the first bullet point that says, "17,779 participants."
The front of the marathon's web site says, "17,779 registrants make record-breaking attendance, performances" and the press release on a nearby link says, "With a record prize purse of $172,900, an unprecedented 17,779 runners competed in the Chevron Houston Marathon, Aramco Houston Half Marathon and Houston Press/Smart Financial 5K, breaking last year’s record and reaching the field limit in both the marathon and half marathon races."
We can tell from looking at the results that 14,767 were official finishers -- 5,414 in the marathon, 7,351 in the half marathon and 2,002 in the 5K.
So what the Chevron Houston Marathon is trying to tell you is that 3,012 individuals picked up their packet, showed up on race day, participated and didn't finish.
Unless, of course ... the definition of participation has changed.
Sure and I suppose the definitions of sex and weapons of mass destruction have changed too.
I agree with the rankings that writer Ryan Staurt and team put together as well as the gaudy ranking that "Marathon and Beyond" bestowed on the event in their November/December 2005 edition.
It is a great event -- although the half marathon is overpriced at $50 a head -- and it is "fast" and pretty much "no hassle."
So why then does the Chevron Houston Marathon choose to include a material distortion of the facts in an effort to promote their event?
posted by WalkSports.com | 11:02 PM
3 Comments:
Actually, I'd have to split it 3 ways, not just 2. There are registrants - people who registered to run the race ahead of time.
Then there are participants - people who actually started the race at least, which would be a subset of the first group. There's always going to be a certain number of people who register but don't run a race.
And finally, there are the finishers. The way I read it, total people registered were 17,779. 14,767 of those were finishers. Of the 3012 remaining, some participated in the race but did not finish but also some were registrants who never made it to the starting line.
A race generally has no sure fire means of counting:
o The number of runners who chose not to pick up their chip. Not everybody wants their time shared in public, or understands or cares they need a chip to be "official". Between a chipped and a non-chipped race of the same size the non-chipped race will always have more "official finishers".
o The number of runners who ran with faulty chips.
o The number of runners who started but did not complete the race.
o The number of runners who finished after times were no longer being taken.
o The number of runners who chose to start early under the agreement they would not cross the finish line.
o The number of runners who purchased an entry with no intention of training or running (e.g., simply to support the race).
o The number of runners who did not purchase an entry but ran anyway.
I believe all of the above would consider themselves to have "participated". One could also make a case that the poor souls who bought an entry, trained for months but couldn't do the race itself also "participated". I think it's both reasonable and probably the best apples to apples comparison among races to count registrations, and for the purpose of an ad in a national running magazine it is very reasonable to use the friendly term "participants" instead of the technical term "registrants".
Just my two cents.
Steve
Steve,
First, thanks for defining all of those particular examples.
I agree with you on all of those as well as the reasonable "test".
Even though it wouldn't be a perfect number (for all of the reasons that you present), I would define participants as the "total number of registrants" minus "packets that weren't picked up" - which is a number that can be counted.
The RD has specifically been questioned about the possibility of re-selling those packets that weren't picked up (after a certain time, of course); however, the Marathon actually budgets in a certain percentage of "no shows" into the cap that they have established.
My point speaks to the knowledge and use of the number. If all 17,779 packets were picked up, then they have every right to assume that everyone participated.
However, the Marathon knows that that isn't the case. And, as I pointed out, it wasn't simply done for the runner-friendly term use of a magazine advertisement, the misstatement started on race day plus one (1) - on the event's web site.
I've tried to follow the same principle when talking about the number of Houston Running Bloggers. There have been some who have identified themselves as HRBers, but have not joined the club. Therefore, I use a distinction of talking about paid members vs. HRBers so I am not accused of purposedly overstating the size of the club.
To me, it is the same thing as knowingly cutting a course.
I just think that anybody that has ever signed up for a race - and reads a running magazine - knows that everybody that registers for a race doesn't necessarily participate.
Thanks for the discussion,
Jon
Post a Comment
<< Home