Are sub-2 hour marathon “projects” good for the sport of running?
In Issue 58 of the morning shakeout, I solicited reader responses to the above question after sharing my own thoughts on the matter in Issue 57. Here’s a roundup of answers from both sides of the fence:
Of course they are!
For me, the challenge of getting sub 2 hours has to be seen as a positive step and is at the core of human nature in wanting to better ourselves. Additionally, and more importantly, the process should be considered a good way of advancing human capabilities compared to the other methods that have been tainting the sport recently (Doping Scandal). — Stefan D.
My take on breaking2 is that while if successful, it won’t satisfy hard core fans of the sport as being legitimate, it will go a long way to helping the two-hour barrier be broken in sanctioned competition. Before Bannister broke 4, sports science of the time said it was not possible. One could argue we are much further ahead in that area, but it’s funny how when we look back, we never quite had it right. So I think the physiological estimates are underestimating human capacity. If the controlled environment Nike aims to create results in a sub-2 [hour] marathon, this will break a huge psychological wall. There are plenty of African males who think they can do it, and once one does it, the dam will burst. How “human” it all is remains to be seen, as I’m strongly skeptical of what kind of pharmaceutical aids are in place, but innocent until proven guilty on that front, I guess.—John L.
With regards to Breaking2, I will hold off on judgement until I see the details of the record attempt. If it’s done on an indoor track or downhill course, then I’d be much less impressed than if it were outdoors on a flat course. I like the idea of pushing human limits and if it takes money to do so, then so be it. Of course we’d all love to see the record fall “naturally” in a race environment but I think we’d be waiting decades for that to happen. I don’t really see a downside to this and think it can create positive interest in our sport which we all know is desperately needed. With the dark cloud of doping hanging over athletics, a clean attempt (even if it fails) would be a nice change. Let’s just hope Nike keeps it clean and honest.—Steve J.
I’m a British guy and I must admit to finding myself stumped by all the American negative reaction towards the sub-2 hour marathon project. My personal opinion is that anything which puts running in the spotlight but not in a negative way, as in doping, is a good thing. But this is my big worry— how open are Nike, Adidas etc. going to be re: doping controls in their race to be the first company across the line? It’s only going to be good if they can be totally above board from this point of view but I’m not optimistic and I think this is going to be the project’s Achilles heel. After all, Nike backs Alberto Salazar with his group’s TUEs etc.—Don D.
I was a bit surprised how against it you were in the previous newsletter. I thought the protest was a too strong and that it seemed rooted in a more elite, professional, run-geek notion of what the sport has to be. The best metaphor/example I can think of that relates is car racing. There is Nascar, Indy, F1, drag…There are all types of racing and formats. I would say this equates to Bonneville flats. It is for a specific group who wants to make a machine that can do one thing…go faster than anyone. Now I’m not into car racing at all, but I can respect that it takes all types and a varied sport is a healthy one. If Nike wants to dump crap tons of money into this project so be it…Red Bull does this kind of wackiness all the time and every once in a while they hit the mark on something that transcends the sport. It’s a big world, if this gets attention for running, cool. If it stays a geeky thing that gets a quick mention on the nightly news so be it. But I just don’t think the vitriol is necessary for this.—Miguel P.
Not so fast!
I generally find the idea of creating a sterile and manufactured ‘record’ disconcerting and outside of what I love about running (and any outstanding sporting achievement). I am obviously basing that statement on the limited information thus far released. At the bare minimum, I really can’t muster up any form of enthusiasm or respect for an attempt that doesn’t occur naturally and against the same odds that the greats and heroes of our sport have faced. Paula Radcliffe’s absolute savaging and ownership of the marathon record is something special. It was not done on a classically ‘fast course’ and there were no specific ‘ideal’ conditions present. She just ran with everything she had, and created a revered and unique moment in the process. The same way that Michael Jordan is respected the way that he is now. He did everything he did despite adversity, challenges and factors outside of his control. Not without a single barrier. Yes, Nike and other companies should be investing in their athletes, and constantly looking at making better products to propel the sport forward. Creating an environment free of challenge and classic conditions that define the runs and efforts we respect so much, takes away so much from the sport. Any record is only truly achieved when it is done in the same conditions as its predecessors. To go outside that framework is to disrespect everyone that got there before, and make a mockery of athletic achievements, perseverance and the many failures that have eventually pushed success forward. For this attempt to have any validity or meaning, it needs to be raw and real. There needs to be competition, a ratified course, and enough drug tests pre, during and post to give everyone no shadow of a doubt that it is a honest race of the human spirit, and not a science experiment that doesn’t play by the rules. I respect human achievement against the face of adversity, not temporary shortcuts that can’t and won’t be replicated. I also fail to see how 3 runners getting special treatment and an exemption from the standard rules of the game would generate more interest in the sport. Frankly, If I wasn’t interested in running and I heard about that, I’d be abhorred. I don’t follow a lot of sports, although I follow certain teams and individuals BECAUSE of their impressive achievements against world class competition and fair and consistent rules. In a sport where there is sadly a lot of mistrust (due to blatant and rampant cheating and coverups), poor management and poor regulation from official bodies, we don’t need further derision from what makes the sport great. — Nic E.
Two hour marathon: gives participants incentive to use doping. I am against sport events that focus primarily on the outcome vs. process. Sportsmanship is lacking.—Hans O.
A “valid drug protocol”? Is anyone really holding their breath that Nike will have one for this project? Has it been mentioned once in all the PR for the project? If they took the money they are spending and dedicated it to strengthening and improving performance enhancing substance testing programs for track and road racing, they’d be guaranteed to make the sport more sustainable and appealing.—Eric L.
Running, to me, has always been a true and pure experiment of ones self. How deep we can dig and finding those hidden limits of what we are capable of. The breaking2 project is a bastardized version of what running is and should always be. Yes, maybe it is pushing the limit of human potential but in the wrong way. Let breaking 2:00 come natural or not at all. I think in your Q&A with Josh Rowe, he said it best when he said, “Is it really advancing our sport or inspiring the competitive spirit that makes running so beautiful?”—Zach L.
If not conducted on a record-eligible course during a race, but instead under conditions that are as perfect as possible, the attempt will be a time trial. Defenders of Breaking2 are responsively criticizing Roger Bannister’s sub-4:00 mile as nothing but a time trial (i.e., planned, he had pacers). The difference is that Bannister wasn’t spurred on by a paycheck from a major corporation to attempt the mile record. He was running because he thought someone could do it and he wanted to be the first — his fire was from competition and ambition. This project might draw attention to the marathon distance, it might raise interest and participation in the sport, but it will absolutely be a solid marketing opportunity for Nike first and foremost. Ideally, I’d love to see someone break the two hour mark accidentally, so blinded by the want for the win and the fire of racing that they didn’t realize what was happening until the homestretch. Though that’s an unlikely scenario, I’d still like to see it happen in a competition situation. That would be far more remarkable to me than a lab rat running point to point at sea level in 57 degree weather at 9:00AM in the latest Nike long distance line just to prove that the human race is ready to do it. (Or worse, on a treadmill.) The heart and brokenness and shattered limitations of pure competition will always be felt more keenly and inspire more significantly than the milliseconds on a clock. I don’t watch Ayana blow past the 10K records and say, “I can do that too.” I see the resilience in Brianne Theisen-Eaton’s eyes as she stands with her competitors fallen all around her and say, “Maybe I could be like that.”—Kendall T.
Aren’t so many world records in distance events already highly contrived? I think this attempt is crossing lines if it does not use an IAAF certified record eligible course and if the equipment (shoes) start to approach mechanical advantages like some prosthetic devices could. As for attracting more people, I think it would not except for a brief moment. Even people who actually run marathons for the most part do not follow the sport. They will know a few names and that is it. Ask someone who ran a marathon to name one of the winners of that marathon. See how often they get it right. My hypothesis is that it is the competition and achieving a difficult goal that makes marathons interesting. I do not think breaking 2 hours in this manner will do anything for the sport.—Samuel C.
As you say, the Breaking2 project does sound a little contrived and I have my reservations about it. Yet, I also feel that we must give it a chance before dismissing it totally, so will follow it with interest but also a little skepticism. We’ll only be able to start to judge it properly when more information has been revealed and, of course, the event takes place. Whether it’ll be good for the sport remains to be seen. However, in the meantime, it does deprive us of a Keninisa, Kipchoge, Kipsang showdown in London this spring, which could also have been fantastic for the sport if it had been anything like the race in Berlin this autumn and had yielded a world record time in the process not to mention naturally taking us another step closer to a sub 2 hour marathon. The chance to see these three great runners go head to head whilst at the peak of their powers may have been lost forever. What could have been better?—Neil J.
What do you think? Is the Breaking2 project, or another non-sanctioned sub-2hour marathon attempt, good for the sport? Share your thoughts in the responses below.
