Ian O'Riordain Article

pconn062

Good article here by IOR about the elite vs fitness runners and why athletics is unique in that your average hobby jogger is lauded by the general public just as much (if not more so) that our top elite athletes.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/don-t-forget-the-real-athletes-as-reality-athletics-takes-over-1.2140759

The strange thing about all this is that in a sport that increasingly celebrates the perfectly ordinary, there is still some due respect left for an athlete like Mark English. In fact athletics must be the only sport in the world where those at the very basic entry level, who run for the mere pleasure of it, without actually achieving anything, are now deemed heroic in some sense or another, especially if they’ve lost a few stone in weight or quit smoking 40 cigarettes a day.

Any thoughts?

Chivito550

pconn062 wrote: »

Good article here by IOR about the elite vs fitness runners and why athletics is unique in that your average hobby jogger is lauded by the general public just as much (if not more so) that our top elite athletes.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/don-t-forget-the-real-athletes-as-reality-athletics-takes-over-1.2140759



Any thoughts?

On the money, and what I always say here (as recently as today) and get slated for.

Zatopek

He has a fair point. Nowadays everyone is a winner when it comes to running. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be applauded for losing weight or quitting a 40 a day habit but none of that compares to gruelling training regime that elites such as Mark English go through.

The AAI membership numbers as of the 28th February stand at 36,192, an increase of 8% on the figure from 2014. How many of them do you think watched him win silver last week?

This quote sums up the attitude of athletics in Ireland. People would prefer to go run 5k with Ray Darcy than watch the likes of Mark English. Somebody mentioned the lack of elite talk on this forum, I think this article is a good explanation on why this is.

And another example: an email received this week invited me to register for next month’s Great Ireland Run, in the Phoenix Park, for the chance to join in the race with “Tony Audenshaw from the ever popular soap Emmerdale, Jenny Dixon from the much loved Irish soap Fair City, and fitness and food guru and Irish model Roz Purcell”. Not one mention of a single elite athlete, from this or any other country, which believe it or not is what events like this were originally intended to cater for.

menoscemo

On the money.
Sad that Ray Darcy is seen as much as a runner as Gillick. He runs 3 times a week so therefore is a run-junkie :rolleyes:

PaulieC

Argh, I ****ing hate darcy, but i think that an increase in the number of people running will lead to an increase in the appreciation of the elites and what the do.

Did I mention that I really, really, really hate Ray d'arcy ?

Chivito550

PaulieC wrote: »

Argh, I ****ing hate darcy, but i think that an increase in the number of people running will lead to an increase in the appreciation of the elites and what the do.

Did I mention that I really, really, really hate Ray d'arcy ?

I don't think it leads to an appreciation of elites. Id say no more than 3-4% of those running Marlay Parkrun at the weekend would know who Mark English is, and he would have a pretty high profile. Almost none would know who John Travers is. Figures plucked from the sky, but hardly far off.

Zatopek

Agree with Chivito550. An increase in numbers wont lead to an increase in appreciation of elite level athletics. And it doesn't lead to an increase in the overall standard of general athletics. When everyone is a winner, why the need to improve? I'm sure if you look at any of the mass participation events you'll find that there is no more people running under XX:XX for a particular distance than there was in the same race 20 years ago with half the amount of people participating.

PaulieC

Big time, but you will definitely get a greater awareness simply because of the bigger participation numbers, regardless of the quality involved.

Sandwell

The article makes an interesting observation, and one regularly made on this forum, but I'm not sure that there's much can be done. We can't force people to take an interest and Irish athletics doesn't produce enough world-class talent to attract the casual sports fans/bandwagon jumpers. Also there's the fact that some people have been turned off elite athletics because of the perception that it's riddled with dopers. It's a shame but I don't think there's any moral obligation on someone who participates in a sport to follow the national elite. Cycling's probably in a similar situation. How many weekend cyclists know who Sam Bennett is?

ger664

You dont have to be a world champion to be a good role model. Young johnny sees mam/dad making and effort to run and thinks I may be good at this trys it and turns out to be the next Eamon Coughlan/Sonia O Sullivan. It sucks that elites don't get the recognition the deserve but I would think that's really not the reward they are looking for.

rom

ger664 wrote: »

You dont have to be a world champion to be a good role model. Young johnny sees mam/dad making and effort to run and thinks I may be good at this trys it and turns out to be the next Eamon Coughlan/Sonia O Sullivan. It sucks that elites don't get the recognition the deserve but I would think that's really not the reward they are looking for.

I know what your saying but if you ask any distance runner at present from Kenya who inspired them then 90% say Paul Tergat. Same goes for anytime someone that is that the top of their sport is asked who inspired them. Its always a household name. Mam/dad running may get them into the sport but once they get to a similar level as them the no longer fulfill the role model position sadly. Was listening to a guy at a marathon one day and his goal was to beat his dads marathon PB. I think it was 3:15 or something. What if that time was 2:15? Wouldn't that inspire him more ?

People are inspired by brilliance not mediocrity at an elite level.

Krusty_Clown

If cricket has proven anything, it's that success is a catalyst for creating new sports fans. Every sport will always have a core group of die-hard fans (even cricket ), but it takes success to pull in the band-wagon jumpers. For every 10 band-wagon jumpers, you probably end-up with one fan who stays the course, following the sport when things turn sour. Want more elite athletics fans? More success (and more PR when athletes are successful).

IOR paints a very negative picture of fitness runners, as if more fitness runners equates to less attention on the true practitioners of the sport. As someone who had little interest in athletics until I joined the ranks of the fitness brigade, I can only disagree. It's through fitness running that I've found an appreciation for what it really takes to run fast and be successful (albeit imagined from a distance). I didn't watch Mark English live (as I was racing at the time), but watched it as soon as I possibly could afterwards. All his article served to do was further widen the gap between elite-level athletics and the fitness runner, without offering any solutions (all the while getting paid by the word).

eviltwin

I'd rather run myself than watch someone else do it. Does that mean I don't respect elites? Not at all but I don't get a buzz out of watching running.

Timmaay

Great point KC, when I 1stly read the IOR article I totally agreed with him, however the ultimate reality is I'm 100% the same as you, I started running when I was 22, purely for fitness (I'd become an alcoholic mess of a student ha) Without that motivated would I ever have become a tidy enough club athlete, very very unlikely 2bh ha.

clear thinking

Amateur club GAA players who are rubbish are constantly lauded as being glorious behemots on wings of glory. Irish people are used to having dry shyte sold to them as being good fertiliser.

But instead of whinging, clubs and AAI should be capitalising to boost memberships and the talent pool. That'll bring more elite runners through, on the law of averages, and as has been noted even the odd elite runner like English does occasionally get noticed.

physiopad

So he's blaming fitness/recreation runners because we're somehow taking all the attention from the elites... not sure I fully get the logic

Also has IOR seen the absolutely phenomenal uptake in juvenile athletics at club level in the last 2/3 years as a direct result of their parents involvement?

Really weak article

clear thinking

physiopad wrote: »

the absolutely phenomenal uptake in juvenile athletics at club level in the last 2/3 years as a direct result of their parents involvement?

Nail.On.Head.

Fianna Fowl

As least Ian is writing about Athletics, something he should know about rather that his dross GAA match reports which only serve to highlight his complete ignorance.

RuMan

Also has IOR seen the absolutely phenomenal uptake in juvenile athletics at club level in the last 2/3 years as a direct result of their parents involvement?
[/QUOTE]

Good post. Didnt see Mark Englishs race live myself as had a race that day. People go on about the greater interest in GAA/Rugby/ Soccer as far as i can see in this country it means watching these matches (in a pub). That's not my idea of participation in sport.

Also Sonia and Eamon Coughlan rightly generated lots of interest, if Mark English keeps being successful you can be sure lots of people will be jumping on the bandwagon !

plodder

'Reality athletics' That's not very helpful. He may have a point technically about recognition. Obviously, comparing Nuala Carey, Ray Darcy and David Gillick as running junkies is ridiculous at one level, but it was the RTE Guide.... and was he really surprised that Sean O'Rourke did a good interview with Mark English? Those complaints don't ring true to me. At most, they are just symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself.

HelenAnne

Is the article behind a paywall for anyone else?

RayCun

HelenAnne wrote: »

Is the article behind a paywall for anyone else?

The IT limits non-subscribers to a certain number of articles per week

robinph

There must be something in the water for certain topics getting discussed in various running meja at the same time. I'm sure that last weeks MarathonTalk mentioned something about running being an odd sport in that the people at the very bottom of the pile more often than not won't have a clue who the people at the top are or even what events are going on. You won't find a kid kicking a football around in a park that doesn't know who the top football players are, or what game is being played that week.

Is that a bad thing though? More people running, means more people parkrunning, means more people joining clubs, means more people training for faster times for themselves, means more people competing for the clubs, means more people competing for their county, means more people competing for their country.
More people at the bottom of the pile also means that there is more money to be spent on the people at the top of the pile by sponsors and the likes which can only be a good thing. I'd rather see people buying running gear and using it for running in that then means that sponsors spend money on the top sports people, than the football model with is that more people watch sport on TV which means that sponsors spend more money on the top people.

aquinn

RayCun wrote: »

The IT limits non-subscribers to a certain number of articles per week

If you find the article on FB you don't have limited usage.

Tigerandahalf

I think Robin sums up what I think. The more people involved at ground level the more opportunities for the top guys. And it is the ordinary slow joe and mary who are adding interest to the sport and in turn bring more money to it.
There seems to be a few whingers at the top of athletics who moan about the public not showing more interest.
Drug taking is also a huge issue. Every 3rd athlete at the top is failing a drug test. How can you have any faith in the top guys then. Cheating at the top level has become accepted as we have also seen in cycling.
For me there is too much of an obsession with winning olympic medals rather than having decent facilities available for people to exercise around the country.

walshb

Was it just me or die IOR say fook all in that article? Very boring and dead feel off it.

You can't force people to follow athletes or be enamored by them.

Clearlier

robinph wrote: »

There must be something in the water for certain topics getting discussed in various running meja at the same time. I'm sure that last weeks MarathonTalk mentioned something about running being an odd sport in that the people at the very bottom of the pile more often than not won't have a clue who the people at the top are or even what events are going on. You won't find a kid kicking a football around in a park that doesn't know who the top football players are, or what game is being played that week.

Is that a bad thing though? More people running, means more people parkrunning, means more people joining clubs, means more people training for faster times for themselves, means more people competing for the clubs, means more people competing for their county, means more people competing for their country.
More people at the bottom of the pile also means that there is more money to be spent on the people at the top of the pile by sponsors and the likes which can only be a good thing. I'd rather see people buying running gear and using it for running in that then means that sponsors spend money on the top sports people, than the football model with is that more people watch sport on TV which means that sponsors spend more money on the top people.

It's a nicely made point and one that I have largely subscribed to but I'm beginning to wonder how accurate it is. There are surprisingly few runners out there in the gap between the masses doing it as a health and fitness/leisure/bucket list activity and the elite. Obviously there is some trickling down (up?) but I wonder if the focus on raising participation levels has come to the detriment of raising standards? Both have their place, both are important but perhaps a little more work could be done on the latter. At the moment it almost feels like there are two different sports.

Sacksian

The problem for any sport is really one of recruitment and, for standards to improve, that means young kids and juveniles; middle-aged people doing fun running are not stopping anyone from qualifying for the Olympics. Athletics needs to compete for the best athletes against other more popular sports.

I’ve no doubt that many of the best athletes in Ireland aren’t involved in athletics. From my own experience, the guys that won all the races in primary school played football and didn’t even do cross-country in secondary school, most never even had the opportunity. But there were a lot of people I can recognise were just very competitive athletes, who excelled at whatever sport they turned their hand to - they're the guys athletics needs to be competing for.

Some schools have a great cross-country tradition and it’s not genetics that has those schools consistently winning school competitions - it’s teachers and coaches. Even then, there are plenty of athletes competitive at that level who drop out of the sport too. Which is why I think it’s really down to numbers.

You need competition at the junior level and, the really tricky part, is keeping juveniles in the sport. We have some really, really talented juvenile athletes (even starting to see a bit of strength in depth in juvenile sprinting) and the more competition there is, the more they’ll have to push themselves. I think that will keep people interested.

Which is why I can't really muster up any indignation the other part of it: generally, I think more parents involved means more kids involved, so I'm all for mass participation.

I don't care whether they get medals or parades, doesn't really interfere with my own enjoyment of running. I just like seeing people run.

An appreciation of elite athletics is an entirely different subject. My dad is a chain smoker who would probably keel over if he had to run three yards but he could probably tell you every Olympic/World/Euro Championship T&F contender since the 50s.

demfad

pconn062 wrote: »

Good article here by IOR about the elite vs fitness runners and why athletics is unique in that your average hobby jogger is lauded by the general public just as much (if not more so) that our top elite athletes.

........

Any thoughts?

Yep.

Running reduces weight, risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancers, atrophy oesteoperosis, depression, anxiety and a host of other ailments that afflict the modern society we live in. It makes it more likley that a healthy diet and lifestyle will begin to be followed. Head and shoulders above any other physcial activity there is running accounts for the (subjective) greatest strike against these ailments amonst the public.

Whats more relevant to the average punter in 21st century Ireland?
The prospect of greatly increasing quality/longevity of life or cheering on national standard athletes (English aside) competing for Ireland?

Its the former and the lieks of Ray Darcy etc are best equipt to be those role models.
O'Riordan doesnt get this. He doesnt value that a man quitting 40 fags a day or a woman losing a few stone constitutes a massive change to their lives and of their families lies. Why shouldnt they be role models for similar people?

The running boom now bears little resemblance to the running boom in the 80s. This is a health boom primarily and the role models reflect this.

As someone pointed out their kids will be doing athletics, and some firness runners will turn into decent runners...so the health boom should have more transfer affects into athletics.

O'Riordan was born into an athletic family. He sees everything through that prism and frankly he misunderstands a lot as a result.

If I was in a position where following a role model could seriously increase my quality of life and my extension the quality of my families life then logically I should follow that role model. O'Riordan would seem to regard me as a fool for making this clear and correct choice.

There is position for the AAI to push their stars into these roles. Communication is not a strong point there as we all know.

robinph

Really not sure why they needed to fund a "study" to discover this, but a new report that got a mention on BBC Radio 2 this morning pointed out the blindingly obvious for us:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31876338

Basically, inactive kids become inactive adults. Inactive kids are more likely in families where the adults may be in a manual labour type job so are less likely to do active things with the kids of an evening.

Figure out how to keep kids that are into athletics in athletics, yes that is a big problem for the sport, but the biggest issue is getting the next generation of kids active and keeping them so in the first place.

pconn062

Not the most productive article I admit when it comes to offering solutions. However to play devils advocate for the minute, there is no denying that this obsession with the weight losers and the cigarette quitters is having a negative impact on people who actually enjoy athletics as a sport, rather that just as a means of keeping fit. Now, I have nothing against people who run for fitness or health, not at all. But because of the fact that majority of people running don't care about athletics or elite athletes it means that most of the attention that is given to running in the media (even in running focused publications like the Irish Runner) focuses on fitness and these so called "celebrity" inspirations, and not elite athletics. And as an athletics fan, I don't really care if Mary lost 4 stone and broke an hour for 10k, or what Gerry Duffy or Hannah Nolan has to say....about anything!

On a positive note, this has led to an opening in the market for a venture like jumping the gun to fill the void that was left in the elite interest market (especially elite Irish interest).

Tigerandahalf

Pconn it depends what you mean by elite. A lot of top guys in Ireland are not elite in a global sense so perhaps then people don't see them as role models. Mark English is a talented guy but would he make an olympic 800m final? Maybe he will in time and if he does I am sure he will get the recognition he deserves.
I think Ian O'Riordan would be better focusing attention on why the athletic authorities invited a drug cheat to their meet in Athlone and then pulled out with a groin injury plus the timing issues they had at their event. Should the money have been put up for an Irish athlete who reached a certain time or standard instead of inviting athletes from abroad.

annapr

Interesting points being raised here. I had the privilege to watch the Berlin marathon in 2014 and saw the leaders pass at about 38km... on the way to smashing the world record. They were amazing to watch and it struck me that they were really involved in a different sport than the 'masses' following them. That's not to disrespect anyone who trains for and runs a marathon, at whatever pace -- just it's a different level of commitment, ability and achievement.

For me, there are two key points, which are separate but not mutually exclusive:
1) the running boom and mass participation is very positive for all involved with it and for the overall health of the country. Sad though it is that people will follow Fair City actors over elite runners, that's a reflection of our society.

and 2) there is an underinvestment in athletics in Ireland (and arguably, in a lot of other sports too.... just listen to Billy Walsh talk about boxing, our most successful international sport). Which is a failure at national level (along with our underinvestment in education, health, etc., don't get me started).

I don't know whether Athletics clubs are taking advantage of the boom -- we are bombarded with information about GAA nurseries for 4+ year olds. The GAA clubs are investing in it and fair play to them, but I don't recall ever seeing anything from an athletics club for any of the kids.

I had very mixed feelings watching the Operation Transformation 5k -- on the one hand, fair play to everyone doing it and trying to turn their lives around and I'm not that far ahead of them performance wise, so I'm not snobby about that. But on the other hand, I was uncomfortable that it was being applauded as if all goals had been achieved, rather than a step in the right direction for people.

robinph

Is there a change to what is actually reported on in national media though? They never used to care about elite athletics, they still don't. Just now the person who has lost X weight and stopped smoking does get coverage, but that is not reducing the coverage that elites got before.

Don't know how long Irish Runner has been going, but that they have changed their position is more significant than any national media coverage. They are only a niche interest anyway, but is there actually a change to the number of people interested in that niche? I don't think there is, but if they manage to stay publishing by changing tack a bit then that is a good thing I guess. But the small number of people who would have been interested in Irish Runner previously are probably now getting all the news they want from online in order to save a couple of Euros.

Chivito550

If you asked 100 people running say 4:30 to 5 hours in the marathon, what's a better time: 3:30 in the marathon or a 52 second 400m, I reckon the vast majority would say the marathon time, such is the level of disconnect between recreational running and club athletics (not to mention elite athletics).

pistol_75

robinph wrote: »

Is there a change to what is actually reported on in national media though? They never used to care about elite athletics, they still don't. Just now the person who has lost X weight and stopped smoking does get coverage, but that is not reducing the coverage that elites got before.

Don't know how long Irish Runner has been going, but that they have changed their position is more significant than any national media coverage. They are only a niche interest anyway, but is there actually a change to the number of people interested in that niche? I don't think there is, but if they manage to stay publishing by changing tack a bit then that is a good thing I guess. But the small number of people who would have been interested in Irish Runner previously are probably now getting all the news they want from online in order to save a couple of Euros.

As you say it is both AI and Irish Runner that seem to be becoming more and more aligned to catering for the lets call it non-elite market. In my mind this is good marketing on their behalf. It is probably what is still keeping them in existence today.

How much do elite athletes benefit though from the upsurge in interest and increased members of AI in the past few years. This will have led to an increase in the money taken by AI (maybe not huge), but what is this being used for?

In reality we don't have very many elite athletes. Another way we could look at things is should we be back slapping our Elite athletes who seem to be happy just to make qualifying times to reach major championships or should we be wondering why the overall standard is so poor compared to the past?

Maybe it is not just the people who have given up the fags or lost 4 stone and started running who are being given too much gratitude for their achievements.

Sacksian

Actually, what I love about athletics is the complete the flip-side of IO'R's main gripe!

I ran the Berlin marathon a few years ago. As far as the results go, I was in the same race as one of, if not, the greatest distance runners of all time. And, as he didn't finish, I beat him!!

Run a graded event and you'll be warming up alongside (and being lapped by) some of the country's best runners - there aren't many other sports where you can compete toe-to-toe with the elite like that!

Sacksian

pistol_75 wrote: »

In reality we don't have very many elite athletes. Another way we could look at things is should we be back slapping our Elite athletes who seem to be happy just to make qualifying times to reach major championships or should we be wondering why the overall standard is so poor compared to the past?

Maybe it is not just the people who have given up the fags or lost 4 stone and started running who are being given too much gratitude for their achievements.

I'm not sure whether having a go at the (very) few people making major championships would be of much benefit in encouraging more and more people to get involved with the sport, which is where I think the problem is.

Anyone qualifying for major championships isn't coasting off the back of the few people that recognise the scale of their achievement.

Chivito550

pistol_75 wrote: »

As you say it is both AI and Irish Runner that seem to be becoming more and more aligned to catering for the lets call it non-elite market. In my mind this is good marketing on their behalf. It is probably what is still keeping them in existence today.

How much do elite athletes benefit though from the upsurge in interest and increased members of AI in the past few years. This will have led to an increase in the money taken by AI (maybe not huge), but what is this being used for?

In reality we don't have very many elite athletes. Another way we could look at things is should we be back slapping our Elite athletes who seem to be happy just to make qualifying times to reach major championships or should we be wondering why the overall standard is so poor compared to the past?

Maybe it is not just the people who have given up the fags or lost 4 stone and started running who are being given too much gratitude for their achievements.

Is the standard poorer compared to the past though? In long distance yes, but look at the sprints. We were woeful for about 60 years, since Bob Tisdall's gold in LA 1932. But in the last 15-20 years we've seen Susan Smith come 7th in the world to get the ball rolling for the likes of Gillick, Hession, O'Rourke, Thomas Barr among others to compete to the level we once could only dream of. Our middle distance success has been pretty decent of late also, and let's not forget our stars of yesteryear didn't have to compete against such an insane depth of East Africans. I think we perform well at an elite level given the size of our country, the world wide nature of the sport, the fact it's a minority sport, and that it doesn't get heavily funded.

average_runner

Media doesn't cover athletics that much because we aren't very good at athletics.
Public only gets interested in something when Ireland are winning.

So if we want to push athletics into the spotlight we need to convert this elite talk into medals because at the moment not many of our athletes are reaching the "elite" title.
In fact 3/4 of them are probably consider joggers to the world best!!!

plodder

Chivito550 wrote: »

If you asked 100 people running say 4:30 to 5 hours in the marathon, what's a better time: 3:30 in the marathon or a 52 second 400m, I reckon the vast majority would say the marathon time, such is the level of disconnect between recreational running and club athletics (not to mention elite athletics).

I think most people would say they don't know. Not saying this just to be pedantic, but I think there's an awful lot of negativity and presumption about what recreational runners think and feel. With some encouragement many of them might actually become more interested.

Chivito550

Sacksian wrote: »

Actually, what I love about athletics is the complete the flip-side of IO'R's main gripe!

I ran the Berlin marathon a few years ago. As far as the results go, I was in the same race as one of, if not, the greatest distance runners of all time. And, as he didn't finish, I beat him!!

Run a graded event and you'll be warming up alongside (and being lapped by) some of the country's best runners - there aren't many other sports where you can compete toe-to-toe with the elite like that!

On the track yes, but is a 4 hour marathon runner starting about a zillion rows back really going toe-to-toe with the best Kenyans? Come on now!

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

If you asked 100 people running say 4:30 to 5 hours in the marathon, what's a better time: 3:30 in the marathon or a 52 second 400m, I reckon the vast majority would say the marathon time, such is the level of disconnect between recreational running and club athletics (not to mention elite athletics).

Its because people associate distance and not time. Also people associate drugs with the lower distances more, so are coy about it.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

On the track yes, but is a 4 hour marathon runner starting about a zillion rows back really going toe-to-toe with the best Kenyans? Come on now!

But if your getting lap on the track are you really going toe to toe?

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

But if your getting lap on the track are you really going toe to toe?

Well for a start, you begin the race beside each other!!

Sacksian

Chivito550 wrote: »

On the track yes, but is a 4 hour marathon runner starting about a zillion rows back really going toe-to-toe with the best Kenyans? Come on now!

You're right - they should start nearer the front!

Either way, for people who care about stuff like that, they're in the same race and I think it's a nice aspect of the sport at whatever distance.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

Its because people associate distance and not time. Also people associate drugs with the lower distances more, so are coy about it.

Ah will you give over such nonsense. There's as much drugs in long distance running, if not more.

pistol_75

Sacksian wrote: »

I'm not sure whether having a go at the (very) few people making major championships would be of much benefit in encouraging more and more people to get involved with the sport, which is where I think the problem is.

Anyone qualifying for major championships isn't coasting off the back of the few people that recognise the scale of their achievement.

I'm not having a go at them and their achievements and the hard work they have had to put in over the years to get to that level.

I'm just get the feeling that in relative terms there is an equal amount of back slapping at that level for qualifying for something as there is among the masses for just getting into a running and doing a 5K or a marathon etc.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

Media doesn't cover athletics that much because we aren't very good at athletics.
Public only gets interested in something when Ireland are winning.

So if we want to push athletics into the spotlight we need to convert this elite talk into medals because at the moment not many of our athletes are reaching the "elite" title.
In fact 3/4 of them are probably consider joggers to the world best!!!

Incorrect. The general public perceive us to be rubbish at athletics. But the general public doesn't understand that it is far harder to win an Olympic gold medal than a triple crown beating 3 teams from the same country, or a race at Cheltenham, against a bunch of horses from a couple of other countries.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Well for a start, you begin the race beside each other!!

Ok, so you agree that all the gardai that toe the line at the front of Dublin marathon, toe the line with elite's?

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

Ok, so you agree that all the gardai that toe the line at the front of Dublin marathon, toe the line with elite's?

FFS, no. Just saying that you'd want to be deluded to consider yourself as "racing the Kenyans".