Run a marathon negative split, get a free pair of shoes

[turd ferguson]

http://blog.strava.com/back-half-challenge/

For my friends running a marathon in the US this fall. Seems like a good deal.

[Dstew]

I believe that I am at a point where I still have certain subjective expectations as to how fast I should be able to complete a marathon but I am desperately trying to wrestle away goals and objectives from under the control of my ego. So to add a little spice, a challenge I would deliberately follow a strategy to essentially ensure that I would "win" the shoes. Start off near the back of the race to ensure that for at least the first few kilometers that I would be running at my "training" or slow long distance run pace. Take my time at the aid stations in the first half the course. Treat the first half as a nice leisurely weekend run. And then "run" the second half.

I can honestly say this as my personal bests are in the rear view mirror. This includes my personal bests for my 50s. Personal "worsts" are at least a possibility and my circumstances are changing to the point where my running paradigm is also shifting. I would run against the clock in order to qualify for Boston. Then it was as a stepping stone to qualify for Boston. Then it was to finish in a "respectable" time visa a via the field and/or my peers. This shifted to based upon my training and running health and fitness at the time of the race. Time is not completely irrelevant to me but nor is it a significant or pressing concern. It still is a race and thus not completely irrelevant. But now it comes with a host of caveats and conditions such as how much pain and suffering am I willing to endure during the training and the race and how much fun is the process and race. And a new consideration is how will it impact my cycling. I believe that even a year or two ago, my answer would be I would not have done anything different during the race to ensure I won the shoes. It it happened, great. I may look at my watch and if in the last few kilometers an extra hard push would win the shoes, I might consider doing that but it would not be a priority. Now, why not to get some shoes. Seems to be as good a reason as anything to adopt a particular race strategy.

Curious how others on this site feel about this.

[RobW]

I think it's a good challenge. Run your best effort and negative split to win a pair of shoes as an added bonus.

To purposely run a slower front half to get a pair of shoes - why bother? Save the entry fee and go buy a pair.

[La]

http://blog.strava.com/back-half-challenge/

For my friends running a marathon in the US this fall. Seems like a good deal.

Only open to US residents who run a marathon in the US.

ETA: The underlined parts don't make sense (seem to contradict each other):

3. ELIGIBILITY:

3.1. The Challenge is open to U.S. residents who are at least eighteen (18) years of age or older (or age of majority in his or her country, state or jurisdiction of residence if the age of majority in said area is greater than 18) at the time of entry (each, an “Entrant”).

3.2 Entrants must have a valid Strava account that was created before they ran their qualifying marathon, and their marathon race must be uploaded on Strava via a GPS device or phone in order to be considered for a prize in the Challenge.

3.3. This Challenge is subject to all applicable country, federal, state and local laws. By participating in the Challenge, each Entrant and all members of a participating Entrant Team, as applicable, unconditionally accept and agree to comply with and abide by these Official Rules. The decisions of Strava are final and binding, including Strava’s right to verify eligibility, to interpret these Official Rules, and to resolve any disputes relating to this Challenge at any time.

3.4. An Entrant can submit multiple qualifying marathon times but may only be eligible for one (1) prize.

3.5. All national and local laws and regulations of the resident’s country of residence apply. Residents of countries under U.S. embargo are not eligible to enter. The contest is void wherever it is restricted or prohibited by law.

[turd ferguson]

Even that first highlighted part contradicts itself. US residents 18 or older (or age of majority in their country of residence). Strava needs a better commercial lawyer.

Somewhere else on the website I thought there was a reference to eligibility being limited to races in the US but not to US residency which is why I posted it.

Ultimately I have no idea. If you go run a negative split and Strava doesn't give you shoes, I disclaim all responsibility.

[La]

Even that first highlighted part contradicts itself. US residents 18 or older (or age of majority in their country of residence). Strava needs a better commercial lawyer.

Somewhere else on the website I thought there was a reference to eligibility being limited to races in the US but not to US residency which is why I posted it.

Ultimately I have no idea. If you go run a negative split and Strava doesn't give you shoes, I disclaim all responsibility.

The entry form itself asks for country in the address field, so I guess that part about having to be a US resident was a typo (they probably cut and paste from some other standard T&C doc).

[Jwolf]

It SOUNDS like what they are trying to say that it is limited to those at the age of majority in whatever country you live in. Poorly written, for sure.

I would just try to do it and see what happens!!

[Habs4ever]

We have friends who are still US citizens but live here. They are not Canadian citizens yet, but their country of residence is Canada. They could do it!

[Jwolf]

We have friends who are still US citizens but live here. They are not Canadian citizens yet, but their country of residence is Canada. They could do it!

It doesn't say anything about US citizens- the confusing part is where they mention US residents. If it really is restricted to US residents they wouldn't be eligible either.

[Dstew]

It SOUNDS like what they are trying to say that it is limited to those at the age of majority in whatever country you live in. Poorly written, for sure.

I would just try to do it and see what happens!!

Correct as one merely has to read the "or" and as two separate sentences.

The Challenge is open to U.S. residents who are at least eighteen (18) years of age or older

OR

age of majority in his or her country, state or jurisdiction of residence if the age of majority in said area is greater than 18) at the time of entry

and to confirm the second part after the "or"

Residents of countries under U.S. embargo are not eligible to enter.

This reinforces/ confirms non-US residents can enter but they cannot be in a country that is under US embargo. It may be poorly written but from a legal perspective, not contradictory. Plus as they wrote the rules, any ambiguity would be read in favor of the person seeking their prize.



Turd was correct about the one thing not in question in that the very first thing is

1. CHALLENGE OVERVIEW:

The Challenge is intended as a skill contest for runners participating in a USATF-certified marathon event in the United States of America between October 9, 2016 and December 4, 2016.

I have to add not sure why contest rules that some people did not even really seem to read is more interesting then the philosophical question as to whether one would purposely use a strategy to enure they ran a quicker second half but that may just be me.

[turd ferguson]

I have to add not sure why contest rules that some people did not even really seem to read is more interesting then the philosophical question as to whether one would purposely use a strategy to enure they ran a quicker second half but that may just be me.

Because everybody who's thought about it has concluded that running a negative split is a pointless strategy and we're down to parsing the fine details of the contest rules.

[Dstew]

I have to add not sure why contest rules that some people did not even really seem to read is more interesting then the philosophical question as to whether one would purposely use a strategy to enure they ran a quicker second half but that may just be me.

Because everybody who's thought about it has concluded that running a negative split is a pointless strategy and we're down to parsing the fine details of the contest rules.

If your premise is correct, then why would anyone care about contest rules for a contest those goal or purpose is "pointless". Discussing the rules of such a contest would by its very definition be pointless. Is not the more interesting and relevant issue why such strategy is either pointless or worthy. What implications are there from the conclusion that slow first, fast second half strategy is pointless in this context: such as does it lay waste to the notion that "just finishing" a marathon is a worthy and noble achievement? Do we need the illusion/ delusion that this is a real athletic event and thus how fast we complete it matters, has a point? I bring this up as in my recent cycling experience, there seems to be a small group who treat officially organized "rides" as a race. They go full out, may only stop for a bare minimum of time to refuel and they are back on the road. But for most people, they are happy to be part of a group or to help someone else along or to linger at the aid stations and the ultimate finishing time is not completely irrelevant but does not seem to be the one and over riding goal/focus. This seems to be in contrast to a marathon whereas most people are racing and a small group near the end is just out for a timed run with aid stations. The "cycling" mentality is largely foreign to me but something I was drifting towards given my bagel and coffee breaks on most of my long runs. At one time it would have been pure heresy to go against running dogma that one must do every run in at a prescribed pace. Walk breaks were allowed but they were to be carefully structured and rigid in its construction. But with my coffee and bagel long runs, it did not seem to matter at the time if I was 5, 10 or even 15 minutes slower. If anything, I crushed my expected time during my race and although there was joy and pride in how fast I finished, even before the bike ride I had thoughts about how much better it might have been had I been just a little slower or stopped to really soak in and enjoy the scenery.

[Spirit Unleashed]

The contest organizers just want your personal information.

[turd ferguson]

The contest organizers just want your personal information.

The contest organizers already have all my personal information. They know where I live, where I work, where I bike, where I swim. They know which yards my dog poops in and which garbage cans I throw it in.

[turd ferguson]

I have to add not sure why contest rules that some people did not even really seem to read is more interesting then the philosophical question as to whether one would purposely use a strategy to enure they ran a quicker second half but that may just be me.

Because everybody who's thought about it has concluded that running a negative split is a pointless strategy and we're down to parsing the fine details of the contest rules.

If your premise is correct, then why would anyone care about contest rules for a contest those goal or purpose is "pointless". Discussing the rules of such a contest would by its very definition be pointless. Is not the more interesting and relevant issue why such strategy is either pointless or worthy. What implications are there from the conclusion that slow first, fast second half strategy is pointless in this context: such as does it lay waste to the notion that "just finishing" a marathon is a worthy and noble achievement? Do we need the illusion/ delusion that this is a real athletic event and thus how fast we complete it matters, has a point? I bring this up as in my recent cycling experience, there seems to be a small group who treat officially organized "rides" as a race. They go full out, may only stop for a bare minimum of time to refuel and they are back on the road. But for most people, they are happy to be part of a group or to help someone else along or to linger at the aid stations and the ultimate finishing time is not completely irrelevant but does not seem to be the one and over riding goal/focus. This seems to be in contrast to a marathon whereas most people are racing and a small group near the end is just out for a timed run with aid stations. The "cycling" mentality is largely foreign to me but something I was drifting towards given my bagel and coffee breaks on most of my long runs. At one time it would have been pure heresy to go against running dogma that one must do every run in at a prescribed pace. Walk breaks were allowed but they were to be carefully structured and rigid in its construction. But with my coffee and bagel long runs, it did not seem to matter at the time if I was 5, 10 or even 15 minutes slower. If anything, I crushed my expected time during my race and although there was joy and pride in how fast I finished, even before the bike ride I had thoughts about how much better it might have been had I been just a little slower or stopped to really soak in and enjoy the scenery.

My premise is not correct. My premise is sarcasm based on previous discussions of negative splits.

[Dstew]

I have to add not sure why contest rules that some people did not even really seem to read is more interesting then the philosophical question as to whether one would purposely use a strategy to enure they ran a quicker second half but that may just be me.

Because everybody who's thought about it has concluded that running a negative split is a pointless strategy and we're down to parsing the fine details of the contest rules.

If your premise is correct, then why would anyone care about contest rules for a contest those goal or purpose is "pointless". Discussing the rules of such a contest would by its very definition be pointless. Is not the more interesting and relevant issue why such strategy is either pointless or worthy. What implications are there from the conclusion that slow first, fast second half strategy is pointless in this context: such as does it lay waste to the notion that "just finishing" a marathon is a worthy and noble achievement? Do we need the illusion/ delusion that this is a real athletic event and thus how fast we complete it matters, has a point? I bring this up as in my recent cycling experience, there seems to be a small group who treat officially organized "rides" as a race. They go full out, may only stop for a bare minimum of time to refuel and they are back on the road. But for most people, they are happy to be part of a group or to help someone else along or to linger at the aid stations and the ultimate finishing time is not completely irrelevant but does not seem to be the one and over riding goal/focus. This seems to be in contrast to a marathon whereas most people are racing and a small group near the end is just out for a timed run with aid stations. The "cycling" mentality is largely foreign to me but something I was drifting towards given my bagel and coffee breaks on most of my long runs. At one time it would have been pure heresy to go against running dogma that one must do every run in at a prescribed pace. Walk breaks were allowed but they were to be carefully structured and rigid in its construction. But with my coffee and bagel long runs, it did not seem to matter at the time if I was 5, 10 or even 15 minutes slower. If anything, I crushed my expected time during my race and although there was joy and pride in how fast I finished, even before the bike ride I had thoughts about how much better it might have been had I been just a little slower or stopped to really soak in and enjoy the scenery.

My premise is not correct. My premise is sarcasm based on previous discussions of negative splits.

Doh or is it Duh on my part.

I did forget this is the internet and so why was I surprised in any such discussion using this media that there would not be at least one reply where the person did not read the rules but still had an opinion as to what the rules meant rather then talk about bigger and more interesting issues.