Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
A question about RFLs
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
@Vicky Pea - same reason there are women-only swim sessions at leisure centres. Couple that with the notion of "sisterhood" and you've got a pretty powerful draw.
CRUK also does open-to-all 10km races, BTW.
I was discussing R4L with some of my club runner friends last night, and making the race more official would really be against the ideals I feel.When club vests and rocket fast ladies start appearing I think it would lose a lot of runners.
Also the single sex entry works, I feel women who don't run out of course together feel a lot more comfortable than in a mixed event. And I couldn't imagine a men's only race without surges of testosterone off the start line, wheras it was all very friendly in the R4L.
As I've never been to one of the Bobby Moore races I can't qualify this opinion though.
Vicky this is my point really - as I have said not really interested in why RFLs exist - they clearly work for some people...but why do people come on here asking about whether one was short etc if its just for fun?? It just feels weird to me why people even care about their times/whether it was full length at such events...surely the idea behins it being women only is to be fun and friendly and non-competitive?
Its a mass of contradictions as a concept - this is why it interests me
(thanks for all the input so far peeps by the way)
I agree with what D2D said.
My first run was the race for life and I now do it every year - I like to know what time I've done it in regardless as to whether its really a full 5K - the competitior in me likes to beat my own time but you can't take a RFL seriously - it takes 5mins or so to get round all the walkers in the wrong place at the start!
this year my friend, her friend and sister came and did RFL as their first run and all are now talking doing 10K's - they would never have entered a 'proper' race and the fact is was women only and mass participation appealed to them too
Its not a contradiction, people do care, like I've said before, when I've done these types of events its clear that some people are there just for the "fun run" side of it, but there are many others who are there for the "race", hence people asking about times and distances, for some its their first race, their first introduction to the world of organised runs, some people have probably even been training for it, the sport relief mile (3 miles, which it wasn't) was my first "race".
Why is it called "Race for life" and not "Run for life"?, I think the "race" bit is an attempt to give it a bit more credability as a "proper" event.
Proper event or not, IMO there is no excuse for how inaccurate some of these courses are, if you went into a shop and brought a lb of potatoes, you'd expect a lb of potatoes, surely it not much to ask when you sign up for a 5k/10k run that its as accurate as possible?
So there's runner A, let's call her Mary, who entered the R4L purely to raise money for charity in memory of her auntie, and is happy to wimble around a park with a couple of her mates, which doesn't sound too daunting since it's not like it's a competitve race or anything. She would've entered a sponsored cake baking if this was a good way to raise funds.
Then there's runner B, Sarah, who took up running fairly recently, likes to keep fit, has also entered because her mate's doing it, and anyway it's for a good cause. Was thinking about entering a race but this could be a nice way to see what it's all about in a friendly atmosphere.
Would it be fair to say that we've agreed these two people do exist and do run (/walk) the same events together? And that Sarah would be interested in knowing whether 24 minutes was a good time for someone who's never run a 5k before? And that Sarah's desire to perform well on the day in no way spoilt Mary's enjoyment of the day, and the meaning it had for her?
So shouldn't the courses be measured to at least some degree of accuracy? It would take someone about 5 minutes on googlemaps to knock out a route plan. How would this in any way take away from the overall spirit of the event? There are no prizes on offer but if you want to know how fast you've covered 5k, no problem.
I agree with D2D. The "race" part is unfortunate- as someone mentioned, it was started by non runners who weren't quite aware of the implications of competitiveness when it was named. then its too late to change it. However, the do point out that they also don't kill you if you don't finish
(race for LIFE) so you don't have to take it literally.
Its incredibly successful being women only and thats how it works best. They are a charity, they need funds, clearly if they could make more by opening it to men, they would. Its by far their biggest fundraising event and they know what they're doing.
If people are upset that the course is not exact, I'm sure all it takes is an email to let them know. After all, its no big task for them to measure it more accurately. They are probably not aware its not being done so now.
How upset would the women be if there was a race ONLY for men that got as much attention and as much media recognition?
Women would absolutely piddle themselves and scream sexism
And who cares about the distance - a milion people are doing it anyway and you can't actually run it properly. It's an enjoyment race
It's not like they cock it up by another 5kms on beach sand where you should run in flip flops.
Wow
You don't think it's the people who are running with Polars and Garmins who are recording it incorrectly?
Maybe plodding along. I don't really know about measuring distances. I know its such a huge thing for them they'd accomodate any suggestions though.
Cancer Reseach UK do male only events too. Unfortunatly they don't have much uptake, seems men prefer to whinge about sexism rather than actually do the races when they are available. i suspect its just moaning for the sake of it (you women have had 200 years of whinging about inequality, now its OUR TURN)
I know someone who was involved in marking up the MK course and it had a lot to do with the physical numbers involved. The start/finish point is pretty fixed at the top of a hill and to accomodate the numbers taking part and spectators they weren't able to deviate too much on the actual course itself.
I did the 10k in MK though wouldn't do so again and measuerd it at 10.23. I had to do a lot of weaving about on the last 1k when it merged with the walkers at the back end of the 5.
I will keep doing the 5K (ish) RFL for sentimental reasons as it got me started several yeas ago but I treat as a bit of fun or a training run.
I don't know of any men who complain about sexism - it's just something that I think as a woman. We sit and jabber on about how we want equality, but we have tag lines to follow on that that lay down sexism as something to suit us and our lifestyles.
I think men's cancer isn't as well known - women need support, men deal with it on their own. Men have numerous cancers that are male specific, but seem to shy away from the media hype behind it.
It's sad
I have no issue with the 'charity' aspect. However why cannot the name be Run for Life and ALSO state that the course is not accurately measured.....possibly be that they know it would affect turnout and resulting funds.
Most charities are run on hard headed business lines and are not apologetic about how they raise funds. In many cases the money is used well.
The London marathon is a charity and you are told the course has been accurately measured. Try telling the runners' after the race sorry we were a bit short this year but after all we are a charity!
The race for life is supposed to be a fun way of getting people involved and raising money for a good cause!!!! if you are so worried about correct distances, competitions and times then don't to RFL - Simples!!!!
I couldn't care less whether races are women only, men only or whatever - there are enough races out there to keep everyone happy surely!!!!!
I think the reason it is called Race for life is that is the race to safe life from cancer and is a nice play on words with having a race. These races are for a good cause and both my sisters did one this year and were really proud of themselves. The did do a bit of training before so may have had some fitness value.
They question about Mens cancers is a complicated one and as a lot to do with how we look at the human body. The female breast is seen more openly in society i.e. newspapers, beaches etc and also with the campaigns about breastfeading we probally feel more at ease talking about breasts.
Cancers that affect mainly women (I know men can get breast cancer so probally a bit generic) have effected people known to the wider public who have used thier illness to raise awerness ie Klyie Jade Goody etc. From male cancers Bobby Moore and Lance Armstrong spring to mind as people who have raised the profile but they may not have the mainstream appeal.
Cheers
Paul
I agree completely, but let's not forget Runner C - we'll call her Betty. Betty is an experienced runner with some decent times and positions under her belt, and recently lost her mother to cancer. She decides she wants to run the R4L in memory of her mum, and to honour that memory with a PB - maybe even a win. Having this sort of focus has helped her cope with her bereavement, and she wants to support the event in the best way she can.
Then you have runner D, E, F, G... starting to get the point? People's reasons for running and what an event means to them are as diverse as people themselves, and one shouldn't be considered any more or less important than the other. What's wrong with celebrating this diversity by having a bit of healthy competition at the front, while at the same time including everyone regardless of pace?
The London Marathon manages it just fine. People of all abilities, from world class athletes to walkers in crazy costumes, turn up on the day and take out of the event what they want to - while at the same time raising thousands for charity.
I appreciate that entering races can be daunting for a beginner (we've all been there), but the current format either disappoints or puts off a lot of people who want to run their first 'proper' race, but aren't ready to face a whippet-dominated club event just yet. I don't see why these things have to be one extreme or the next.
P.S. D2D, I appreciate what you're saying and I agree, but please stop posting those links. The D***y M**l brings me out in a rash.
I think RFL are what they are. Fun runs to raise money. They are not organised runs in the sense that a running club would do them and often aren't interested if a running club offers to help.
Fun runs do not have to be accurately measured. Permitted races do and have to display the course measurement certificate as well. Permitted races often start this and permit/measurement number.
The Jones wheel has already been mentioned. a 10km is usually 10,010M. It follows the shortest route. We have just had a new 10km course in Luton measured. it goes up a road which winds. the course was measured along the centre and we have been told to cone off the right hand bends to stop people going to the other side.
I think the RFLs need to be approximateluy right i.e. a 10km shouldn't be 8km but accurate courses aren't really what they are about not for the majority of entrants anyway.
I do remember the Welwyn 5 mile race as few years back. It was a fast course and a group of Kenyans came to break the 5 mile record. Not sure if it was the world record or a British all-comers or whatever but it was more than just the course record.
Anyway one of them duly destroyed the record but it couldn't be ratified because when the course was re-measured it turned out to be 11 yards short. If it had been 11 yards long then the record would still have gone, it was destroyed. Now they weren't happy !!!
Cancers that affect mainly women (I know men can get breast cancer so probally a bit generic) have effected people known to the wider public who have used thier illness to raise awerness ie Klyie Jade Goody etc. From male cancers Bobby Moore and Lance Armstrong spring to mind as people who have raised the profile but they may not have the mainstream appeal.
Personal gripe coming up here...women don't just get breast cancer you know! Imagine being diagnosed with cancer...pick a cancer, any cancer, let's just say thyroid for this example.
Imagine sitting in a clinic with a tower of leaflets for breast cancer, support group meetings for breast cancer, phone lines for breast cancer, sponsored events...races...for breast cancer while waiting to see your consultant and not having any support. Having 1 leaflet for your cancer that's inaccurate, having your nearest support group nearly 100 miles away, and having no way of finding information apart from Google.
Now imagine that every time cancer research gets mentioned, the most frequent cancer that gets talked about is breast cancer, as if it's the only cancer that women get.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to my life!
Incidentally, I don't know how inaccurate some of the RFLs are - are we talking up to half a km short, or 10 metres?
Well said Kwilter. I can't imagine how isolating that must have felt.
In general there seems to a tendency to talk about the 'female' cancers (e.g. breast, cervical) or 'male' cancers (e.g. prostate, testicular), but not the ones that affect both sexes - thyroid being one but also lung, colorectal and stomach, to name but a few. The media has a lot to answer for here - there's so much focus on making it a women's/men's issue when really it's a PEOPLE issue.
AND they've hijacked an entire colour!