Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS

Expand Messages
  • Dale Keen
    You know it might not hurt to let the 60 and over start at 3 in the morning instead of 5 am. This would not make the race tougher for the race director at
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 24 3:35 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      You know it might not hurt to let the 60 and over start at 3 in the morning
      instead of 5 am. This would not make the race tougher for the race director
      at all. They would still have to make the cutoff times etc. Something
      similar to this idea might be able to work. Something to think about.



      >From: greg m soderlund <gsoderlund@...>
      >Reply-To: ws100@egroups.com
      >To: ws100@...
      >Subject: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS
      >Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:38:47 -0700
      >
      >Taking Carl Pegel's cue, I would like to address his request for
      >consideration of a special 32 hour cutoff for the 60+ age group at WS.
      >Although it is not my decision to make, I would not want to encourage
      >special consideration for any age group at WS. I am talking as an RD
      >here, not a participant. No one loves this sport more than I do and I
      >would like to see every runner finish every ultra. I wish it were a
      >perfect World so everyone could finish and run a PR at the same time.
      >
      >It may be important to remember that the original intention in 1977 was
      >to run WS in the same manner as the Tevis Cup horse race. As it was told
      >to me, Andy Gonzalez was able to meet the same cutoffs as the horses but
      >two runners (the only other runners still standing) were not. It seems
      >to me there were seven starters in this first "Official WS 100." Ralph
      >Paffenbarger and Peter Mattei requested permission to finish the Run, but
      >as unofficial finishers. The Run organizers agreed to their request and
      >went home to get some sleep, or so the story goes. In the early morning
      >hours, Mo Livermore and Bob Lind returned to the finish, which in 1977
      >was at the horse arena on the Placer County Fair Grounds. Ralph and
      >Peter arrived well after the 24 hour cutoff but were given "Official
      >Finisher Status" but no buckle, thus was born the 30 hour final cutoff.
      >
      >I am well aware of the statistics as they relate to age at WS. There is
      >a very real degradation in the finishing rate as the runner grows older.
      >It's not fair and nobody likes getting older. My question to the other
      >listers would be: Should the Run make exceptions for all age groups and
      >both sexes? Should the Run look at all the statistical relations for
      >each age group and tailor the final cutoff for all of them? Should the
      >Run give special consideration to just one age group? Should the 59 year
      >old be confined to the 30-hour cutoff and the 60 year old allowed an
      >additional two hours? Can the Run be designed and administered in such a
      >way that it is absolutely fair for every participant? Is it fair to ask
      >the volunteers to extend their patience and efforts another two hours?
      >
      >In the end, I recognize that cutoffs for every ultra are arbitrary but
      >still loosely based on the maximum amount of time that it would likely
      >and reasonably take for the average trained runner to complete any given
      >course. Many will not make the cutoffs for any number of reasons. This
      >is the very thing that makes the ultra distance a challenge and
      >attractive to so many, the very real possibility that one will not
      >finish. It is this very risk that keeps me coming back. There will come
      >a day when each of us cannot make the cutoff and that will be a very
      >lousy day.
      >
      >Happy trails,
      >
      >Greg Soderlund, RD
      >Western States Endurance Run http://www.ws100.com
      >Way Too Cool 50K, Montrail/Patagonia American River 50
      >242 Hartnell Place, Sacramento, CA 95825 Ph : 916-638-1161
      >http://www.run100s.com/snu -- E-mail: gsoderlund@...
      >
      >
      >________________________________________________________________
      >YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
      >Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
      >Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
      >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

      ________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Ziesing, Hunter S
      3 AM start--great idea for you old farts. man this getting stuff is bumming me out. I barely made 30 hours at age 40. happy summers end ...
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 24 5:27 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        3 AM start--great idea for you old farts.
        man this getting stuff is bumming me out.
        I barely made 30 hours at age 40.

        happy summers end

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Dale Keen [SMTP:dalekeen@...]
        > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 3:36 AM
        > To: ws100@egroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS
        >
        > You know it might not hurt to let the 60 and over start at 3 in the
        > morning
        > instead of 5 am. This would not make the race tougher for the race
        > director
        > at all. They would still have to make the cutoff times etc. Something
        > similar to this idea might be able to work. Something to think about.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        _____________________________________________________________________
        IMPORTANT NOTICES:
        This message is intended only for the addressee. Please notify the
        sender by e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the
        intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose, or distribute this message
        or its contents to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful.

        Banc of America Securities LLC("BAS") does not accept time
        sensitive, action-oriented messages or transaction orders, including orders
        to purchase or sell securities, via e-mail.

        BAS reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all
        messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this
        e-mail address may be stored on the BAS e-mail system.
      • thewashman@aol.com
        Yeah, and how about an exemption for us slow 50 year olds too? Let s not be disciminatory. Later, Jeff Washburn
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 24 6:21 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Yeah, and how about an exemption for us slow 50 year olds too? Let's not be disciminatory.

          Later,
          Jeff Washburn
        • Andrew Holak
          I ve just got to make a comment to those on this list over 60. You have my (and most other runners) utmost admiration for even starting 100 mile foot races
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 24 6:31 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            I've just got to make a comment to those on this list over 60. You have my (and most other runners) utmost admiration for even starting 100 mile foot races and running as well as you do. It saddens me to hear so many older people say that because of their age they have to sit their butts on an ATV or other motorized contraption to enjoy the outdoors. Older runners like yourselves prove that using these motorized crutches to enjoy the outdoors is not a necessity, and that with a little active attention, getting out and using this body we were given, you can stay active and enjoy the outdoors the way it was meant to be enjoyed...under your own power! Thanks for being an inspiration to so many!

            Andy Holak
            Duluth, MN

            >>> greg m soderlund <gsoderlund@...> 08/24/00 12:38AM >>>
            Taking Carl Pegel's cue, I would like to address his request for
            consideration of a special 32 hour cutoff for the 60+ age group at WS.
            Although it is not my decision to make, I would not want to encourage
            special consideration for any age group at WS. I am talking as an RD
            here, not a participant. No one loves this sport more than I do and I
            would like to see every runner finish every ultra. I wish it were a
            perfect World so everyone could finish and run a PR at the same time.

            It may be important to remember that the original intention in 1977 was
            to run WS in the same manner as the Tevis Cup horse race. As it was told
            to me, Andy Gonzalez was able to meet the same cutoffs as the horses but
            two runners (the only other runners still standing) were not. It seems
            to me there were seven starters in this first "Official WS 100." Ralph
            Paffenbarger and Peter Mattei requested permission to finish the Run, but
            as unofficial finishers. The Run organizers agreed to their request and
            went home to get some sleep, or so the story goes. In the early morning
            hours, Mo Livermore and Bob Lind returned to the finish, which in 1977
            was at the horse arena on the Placer County Fair Grounds. Ralph and
            Peter arrived well after the 24 hour cutoff but were given "Official
            Finisher Status" but no buckle, thus was born the 30 hour final cutoff.

            I am well aware of the statistics as they relate to age at WS. There is
            a very real degradation in the finishing rate as the runner grows older.
            It's not fair and nobody likes getting older. My question to the other
            listers would be: Should the Run make exceptions for all age groups and
            both sexes? Should the Run look at all the statistical relations for
            each age group and tailor the final cutoff for all of them? Should the
            Run give special consideration to just one age group? Should the 59 year
            old be confined to the 30-hour cutoff and the 60 year old allowed an
            additional two hours? Can the Run be designed and administered in such a
            way that it is absolutely fair for every participant? Is it fair to ask
            the volunteers to extend their patience and efforts another two hours?

            In the end, I recognize that cutoffs for every ultra are arbitrary but
            still loosely based on the maximum amount of time that it would likely
            and reasonably take for the average trained runner to complete any given
            course. Many will not make the cutoffs for any number of reasons. This
            is the very thing that makes the ultra distance a challenge and
            attractive to so many, the very real possibility that one will not
            finish. It is this very risk that keeps me coming back. There will come
            a day when each of us cannot make the cutoff and that will be a very
            lousy day.

            Happy trails,

            Greg Soderlund, RD
            Western States Endurance Run http://www.ws100.com
            Way Too Cool 50K, Montrail/Patagonia American River 50
            242 Hartnell Place, Sacramento, CA 95825 Ph : 916-638-1161
            http://www.run100s.com/snu -- E-mail: gsoderlund@...


            ________________________________________________________________
            YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
            Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
            Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
            http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


            To Post a message, send it to: ws100@...

            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: ws100-unsubscribe@...
          • thewashman@aol.com
            You know, what we really need is an exemption to the $195 entry fee. WOW! As much as I want to go to Western States every chance I get, I m not sure I will
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 24 6:49 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              You know, what we really need is an exemption to the $195 entry fee. WOW! As much as I want to go to Western States every chance I get, I'm not sure I will be able to go for some time. I'm going to have to win a bigger lottery than the one for the race if I want to keep running the race.

              Later,
              Jeff Washburn
            • Falcontomc@aol.com
              There many 60 and over runners who who have no trouble with or need more liberal cut-offs. Western States is the great race it is because of the difficulty,
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 24 7:35 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                There many 60 and over runners who who have no trouble with or need more
                liberal cut-offs. Western States is the great race it is because of the
                difficulty, the various time constraints etc. We should leave it alone. I
                would love to try Kevins Kettle Moraine but have doubts as to whether I could
                make the 28 hour limit {i'm 57]. Its not great getting older and even worse
                having your friends discover AARP sends you Modern Maturity Magazine but we
                have to accept the fact we get slower with age. I look for Ultras I think I
                have a good shot at finishing. My heads down fire away.

                Tom Crull
              • Falcontomc@aol.com
                Right on Jeff! Tom Crull
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 24 7:38 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Right on Jeff!

                  Tom Crull
                • Stan Jensen
                  ... While it s good that you re trying to come up with alternatives, an early start at Western States would definitely make it harder on the RD, the
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 24 2:55 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dale Keen wrote:

                    > You know it might not hurt to let the 60 and over start at 3 in the
                    > morning instead of 5 am. This would not make the race tougher for the
                    > race director at all. They would still have to make the cutoff times
                    > etc. Something similar to this idea might be able to work. Something
                    > to think about.

                    While it's good that you're trying to come up with alternatives, an
                    "early start" at Western States would definitely make it harder on the
                    RD, the volunteers and others. Ask me off-line if you need more details.
                    Also, what about the 350+ runners who now have to pass those slower
                    runners on the narrow trails in the early sections? Just my $0.02 ...

                    Stan
                    --
                    Stan Jensen, P.O. Box 3426, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-3426
                    http://www.Run100s.com/ mailto:StanJ@...
                  • Dale Keen
                    There are alot of us that could get to mountainous races etc. Like you propose. Here in Texas we do have heat. I think the heat here is alot tougher than
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 24 3:15 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There are alot of us that could get to mountainous races etc. Like you
                      propose. Here in Texas we do have heat. I think the heat here is alot
                      tougher than moderate elevation like the Western States. I grew up in
                      Colorado so I know about elevation extremes. I think the qualifying
                      standards should be left alone. Don't discriminate against we flat landers.

                      >From: Jim Winne <ultrajim@...>
                      >Reply-To: ws100@egroups.com
                      >To: ws100@egroups.com
                      >Subject: Re: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS
                      >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:50:08 -0700
                      >
                      >I should point out that I'm 53 and have never done WS, though I have
                      >seen it from various perspectives; aid station volunteer, pacer and
                      >safety patrol. It is a great race and certainly the "Superbowl" of 100
                      >milers! However, as with all things, constructive criticism can be a
                      >good thing, so here's my 2 cents.
                      >
                      >I'm opposed to the 32 hour cutoff but do think there are other ways
                      >to increase the finishing rate for older (and all) runners. First, I'd like
                      >to see pacers for the whole race for those over 60 (maybe 65)
                      >reinstated. While it doesn't physically help an older runner, I believe it
                      >does help mentally by addressing safety concerns older runners may
                      >have (thus reducing fatigue from the stress of worrying), particularly in
                      >a snow year where falling is a real probability.
                      >
                      >Secondly, and most importantly, I think the qualifying standards need
                      >to be looked at. I personally know people who have entered on the
                      >basis of only ever having done one 50M "trail" race with minimal
                      >altitude change (2500') and no knowledge of the nature of WS. It is
                      >unrealistic to expect these people, or those who enter on the basis of
                      >a single, relatively slow road 50M, to finish within 30 hours. While I
                      >don't begrudge them the right to enter a 100M, the fact is WS is so
                      >popular it has to resort to a lottery. As long as a lottery is necessary, I
                      >feel all would be better served if the qualifying standards were
                      >tightened to better reflect a realistic barometer of finishing. I think the
                      >50M standards should be changed to a minimum of 3 50 milers in the
                      >past year or a sub 10 hour in the past year with at least 2 other 50+
                      >milers run in the past 3 years, all on trail with at least 6000' of climb.
                      >This might be a more accurate gage of potential success and could
                      >also significantly reduce the number of entrants, which would have a
                      >direct, positive impact on the lottery. I personally would not enter with
                      >any realistic expectations of finishing without a recent sub 10 hour on
                      >a difficult course. I know there are some people who run 10-12 hours
                      >and can still finish WS but they are generally all seasoned ultra runners
                      >who through years of experience have learned what it takes to keep
                      >going for up to 30 hours.
                      >
                      >Finally, moving the lottery date back closer to the race should be
                      >considered. If entry requirements were tightened and entrants
                      >significantly reduced, many concerns about this are eliminated. For
                      >example, the average entrant would be more experienced and
                      >probably not need 8 months to train specifically for WS. As one gets
                      >older, injuries become more frequent and the current 8 months
                      >between entry and race is a long time for many to stay injury free. If
                      >the lottery was moved closer to the race, it's likely more entrants
                      >would be healthy on race day. As has been pointed out, WS is an
                      >expensive proposition for many and I think many people start, even
                      >though they know they're injured/undertrained, because they have
                      >invested so much time/money. This is the main reason I haven't
                      >entered the lottery. With my history of injuries and knowing that I
                      >would obsess/overtrain with 8 months lag time, I'd probably not make
                      >the starting line. But as the saying goes - I ain't getting any younger!
                      >
                      >Good luck to everyone in this year's lottery and I'll be there again next
                      >year in one capacity or another.
                      >
                      > - Jim Winne
                      >
                      >On 23 Aug 00, at 22:38, greg m soderlund wrote:
                      >
                      > > Taking Carl Pegel's cue, I would like to address his request for
                      > > consideration of a special 32 hour cutoff for the 60+ age group at WS.
                      >

                      ________________________________________________________________________
                      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                    • jmcdon07@wt.net
                      The important thing to remember is that this is the race that set the standards for almost all the other 100 mile races. True, there are variations (Wasatch,
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 24 3:54 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The important thing to remember is that this is the race that set the
                        standards for almost all the other 100 mile races. True, there are
                        variations (Wasatch, Hardrock, etc), but the vast majority of 100
                        milers still maintain the 24/30 hour cutoff instituted by W/S way
                        back when. Some of these races are tougher than W/S. Some are
                        easier. You can complete or DNF at one of these races just as easily
                        as you can at States no matter what your age is. The big problem
                        here is that if you change one rule, you start to justify changing
                        other rules. Please, let's not compromise the integrity and sanctity
                        of Western States.

                        --- In ws100@egroups.com, "Dale Keen" <dalekeen@h...> wrote:
                        > There are alot of us that could get to mountainous races etc. Like
                        you
                        > propose. Here in Texas we do have heat. I think the heat here is
                        alot
                        > tougher than moderate elevation like the Western States. I grew up
                        in
                        > Colorado so I know about elevation extremes. I think the qualifying
                        > standards should be left alone. Don't discriminate against we flat
                        landers.
                        >
                        > >From: Jim Winne <ultrajim@p...>
                        > >Reply-To: ws100@egroups.com
                        > >To: ws100@egroups.com
                        > >Subject: Re: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS
                        > >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:50:08 -0700
                        > >
                        > >I should point out that I'm 53 and have never done WS, though I
                        have
                        > >seen it from various perspectives; aid station volunteer, pacer and
                        > >safety patrol. It is a great race and certainly the "Superbowl" of
                        100
                        > >milers! However, as with all things, constructive criticism can be
                        a
                        > >good thing, so here's my 2 cents.
                        > >
                        > >I'm opposed to the 32 hour cutoff but do think there are other ways
                        > >to increase the finishing rate for older (and all) runners. First,
                        I'd like
                        > >to see pacers for the whole race for those over 60 (maybe 65)
                        > >reinstated. While it doesn't physically help an older runner, I
                        believe it
                        > >does help mentally by addressing safety concerns older runners may
                        > >have (thus reducing fatigue from the stress of worrying),
                        particularly in
                        > >a snow year where falling is a real probability.
                        > >
                        > >Secondly, and most importantly, I think the qualifying standards
                        need
                        > >to be looked at. I personally know people who have entered on the
                        > >basis of only ever having done one 50M "trail" race with minimal
                        > >altitude change (2500') and no knowledge of the nature of WS. It is
                        > >unrealistic to expect these people, or those who enter on the
                        basis of
                        > >a single, relatively slow road 50M, to finish within 30 hours.
                        While I
                        > >don't begrudge them the right to enter a 100M, the fact is WS is so
                        > >popular it has to resort to a lottery. As long as a lottery is
                        necessary, I
                        > >feel all would be better served if the qualifying standards were
                        > >tightened to better reflect a realistic barometer of finishing. I
                        think the
                        > >50M standards should be changed to a minimum of 3 50 milers in the
                        > >past year or a sub 10 hour in the past year with at least 2 other
                        50+
                        > >milers run in the past 3 years, all on trail with at least 6000'
                        of climb.
                        > >This might be a more accurate gage of potential success and could
                        > >also significantly reduce the number of entrants, which would have
                        a
                        > >direct, positive impact on the lottery. I personally would not
                        enter with
                        > >any realistic expectations of finishing without a recent sub 10
                        hour on
                        > >a difficult course. I know there are some people who run 10-12
                        hours
                        > >and can still finish WS but they are generally all seasoned ultra
                        runners
                        > >who through years of experience have learned what it takes to keep
                        > >going for up to 30 hours.
                        > >
                        > >Finally, moving the lottery date back closer to the race should be
                        > >considered. If entry requirements were tightened and entrants
                        > >significantly reduced, many concerns about this are eliminated. For
                        > >example, the average entrant would be more experienced and
                        > >probably not need 8 months to train specifically for WS. As one
                        gets
                        > >older, injuries become more frequent and the current 8 months
                        > >between entry and race is a long time for many to stay injury
                        free. If
                        > >the lottery was moved closer to the race, it's likely more entrants
                        > >would be healthy on race day. As has been pointed out, WS is an
                        > >expensive proposition for many and I think many people start, even
                        > >though they know they're injured/undertrained, because they have
                        > >invested so much time/money. This is the main reason I haven't
                        > >entered the lottery. With my history of injuries and knowing that I
                        > >would obsess/overtrain with 8 months lag time, I'd probably not
                        make
                        > >the starting line. But as the saying goes - I ain't getting any
                        younger!
                        > >
                        > >Good luck to everyone in this year's lottery and I'll be there
                        again next
                        > >year in one capacity or another.
                        > >
                        > > - Jim Winne
                        > >
                        > >On 23 Aug 00, at 22:38, greg m soderlund wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > Taking Carl Pegel's cue, I would like to address his request for
                        > > > consideration of a special 32 hour cutoff for the 60+ age group
                        at WS.
                        > >
                        >
                        >

                        ______________________________________________________________________
                        __
                        > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
                        http://www.hotmail.com
                      • Jim Winne
                        I realize many people don t have hills to train/race on but I m not proposing that the standards for 100K or 100M be changed and these would still be valid
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 24 6:33 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I realize many people don't have "hills" to train/race on but I'm not
                          proposing that the standards for 100K or 100M be changed and
                          these would still be valid options for everyone. I do, however, think
                          there is such a huge difference between doing any 50M, much less a
                          "flat" one, and WS that if a 50M is going to be used as a qualifier it
                          should be reflective of the conditions at WS.

                          The reality is that WS is a mountain run, with significant elevation
                          change and there are currently qualifying standards in place. If the
                          object of theses standards is to insure minimal fitness to have a chance
                          to successfully complete the race, and we really are concerned with
                          finishing rates, then the standards should realistically reflect that. If the
                          standards are just to insure that you won't die out there and no one
                          cares whether you have a chance to finish or that possibly unprepared
                          runners use lottery spaces that could go to those that have
                          demonstrated a greater likelihood of finishing, then leave them alone.
                          My opinion is that this ain't just any 100 miler, it's Western States, you
                          do and should have to earn your way in and priority should go to
                          those who have the greatest likelihood of finishing as demonstrated by
                          prior performances.

                          From my observations, working the river crossing aid station at mile
                          78 and pacing from Foresthill where we passed at least 30 runners
                          after the river crossing, many runners are unprepared for the toll the
                          the downhills take. As Greg pointed out on the ultra list, mile 75
                          seems to be where the wheels begin to fall of and I believe one of the
                          main reasons is the pounding the quads take to that point. Thus I
                          believe some demonstrated experience with either distance (100K or
                          more) or "hills" should be a prerequisite.

                          With no facts to back it up, I would guess one reason for diminished
                          finishing rates in a lot of 100 milers, is it's the "in" thing to do and
                          you're not considered a "real" ultrarunner until you've done one. This
                          results in more unprepared runners attempting them. So I guess the
                          question is, given the fact of the lottery at WS, should the race be
                          open to anyone who manages to minimally qualify even if they don't
                          have a realistic chance to finish. Or should those who have a more
                          realistic chance, based on stricter qualifying criteria (including
                          experience), be given priority?

                          On 24 Aug 00, at 22:15, Dale Keen wrote:

                          > There are alot of us that could get to mountainous races etc. Like you
                          > propose. Here in Texas we do have heat. I think the heat here is alot
                          > tougher than moderate elevation like the Western States. I grew up in
                          > Colorado so I know about elevation extremes. I think the qualifying
                          > standards should be left alone. Don't discriminate against we flat
                          > landers.
                        • jmcdon07@wt.net
                          Hey, I ve got it ... instead of a lottery let s just throw one great big happy immunity challenge ... and while we re at it let s vote runners out of the race
                          Message 12 of 12 , Aug 25 10:27 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hey, I've got it ... instead of a lottery let's just throw one great
                            big happy "immunity challenge"... and while we're at it let's vote
                            runners out of the race at each medical check point ... we could even
                            start serving rat meat and larve at the aid stations ... seriously
                            folks, this thing is starting to get out of hand ... if it ain't
                            broke don't fix it! Jerry McDonald

                            --- In ws100@egroups.com, Stan Jensen <stanj@r...> wrote:
                            > Dale Keen wrote:
                            >
                            > > You know it might not hurt to let the 60 and over start at 3 in
                            the
                            > > morning instead of 5 am. This would not make the race tougher
                            for the
                            > > race director at all. They would still have to make the cutoff
                            times
                            > > etc. Something similar to this idea might be able to work.
                            Something
                            > > to think about.
                            >
                            > While it's good that you're trying to come up with alternatives, an
                            > "early start" at Western States would definitely make it harder on
                            the
                            > RD, the volunteers and others. Ask me off-line if you need more
                            details.
                            > Also, what about the 350+ runners who now have to pass those slower
                            > runners on the narrow trails in the early sections? Just my
                            $0.02 ...
                            >
                            > Stan
                            > --
                            > Stan Jensen, P.O. Box 3426, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-3426
                            > http://www.Run100s.com/ mailto:StanJ@R...
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.