Has this been posted anywhere already? USATF banned headphones from all sanctioned races? (Read 1062 times)

Right. But what we are inquiring into is the adequacy of and justification for the explicit rules about assistance. I am also interested in why the rules of racing are centered around the concept of assistance, instead of something like "the experience of the participants." That the rules are written and clearly defined does not make them right.

Out of curiosity, why should the USATF care about "the experience of the participants?" These rules define the nature of the competition in the sport. Major League Baseball doesn't have a rule that states that all of the players need to be happy about what happens to their baseballs that they hit before going to the hall of fame, or else Barry Bonds wouldn't be moaning about the asterisk (for example). In fact, they have a rule that states that baseball players can not wear headphones during the game. The original rule was written that way because it sets boundaries on what is fair and what isn't fair in a track race. Those rules were then adopted by road races who wanted sanctioning by the USATF so that they could get cheaper insurance, course certifications, and have a ready made set of rules, bylaws, and tax advantaged ways of awarding prize money and doing drug testing. Do you think that people went to watch Pre or Shorter or Parker run because they wanted to see them enjoying themselves? The rules define the game. Assistance is defined because it is all about what is fair and what isn't. The enforcement of this rule in road races is directly related to the rise in insurance costs that allowing headphones causes. Higher insurance costs means that there are going to either be higher entrance fees, or else the race organizers need to raise more money, or else the race organizers have less money to donate to the beneficiary of the race. I'm not a fan of any of those three options.

Out of curiosity, why should the USATF care about "the experience of the participants?" These rules define the nature of the competition in the sport.

Why should the USATF care about the experience of participants? Really? Why should the governing body of the sport care about the experience of its athletes? Possibly because the USATF's mission is to foster sustained competition, participation and interest in the sport of running. Just a guess. I agree the rule being used was originally designed to restrict "assistance" in all conceivable forms. But it's also clear the current selective enforcement of this rule at road races has to do with safety and controlling insurance costs. It has nothing to do with any competitive advantage that could be gained from headphones. For the same reason I doubt GPS watches would be considered illegal. If they were, you would think the USATF would have expressed an opinion on them by now since they are so prevalent.

That's right, some will enforce, some won't. If it's not mentioned on the web site or registration form, they are probably not going to enforce. Send them an email if you want to know for sure...

I happen to wear an iPod for several reasons. First of all, I run by myself and it can be a real lackluster experience at times, when one's not 100% and need a little motivational "kickstart". As so far as racing goes, I can't see how this could be enforced, especially with so many runners. In NY, most of the races I run in are 3,4,5 thousand strong or more. One thing I can definitely agree that should be banned and have absolutely no merit on the race course are cameras. In my race yesterday, I saw tons of people, mostly foreigners in the race by allotment, coming to A COMPLETE STOP, just to take pictures of the New York skyline. A couple of times, I had to weave and bob around them. This is absolutely insane. One thing for sure, when I run with an iPod, I am even more careful about the road and those around me, to avoid just the sort of thing that insurance companies and the USATF are warning about. It does cost me a little bit of extra energy, I admit. But having the trade-off is not so bad.

When I checked my official results for the Applefest HM, I noticed a link, clicked it and found eight runners listed under the following banner: *********************************************** RUNNERS DISQUALIFIED FOR USING PROHIBITED ITEMS *********************************************** I imagine most were for mp3 players, but nobody can claim ignorance. The information is prominently posted on the race webpage. The reason given is insurance requirements, it is a USATF course. Runners only - "No walkers", and none of the following are allowed. No pets, baby strollers, skates, headsets earbuds, mini-speakers anywhere on or around the body. And just to be clear, that means that IPODS in any form or by any other name are not allowed. This is a safety/insurance issue and has nothing to do with a like or dislike of music. It has to do with the potential future cost of insurance and/or the possible lack of availability of insurance for our race. Runners violating this safety rule will be disqualified

Well sadly we do go to court over the silliest BS these days. We need tort refrom in the worst way!

Actually you asked a very good question. Too bad this board is not set for polls Would you be willing to pay an added $10 to the entry fee and sign a wavier so that you could take your music with you on a race?

Would you be willing to pay an added $10 to the entry fee and sign a wavier so that you could take your music with you on a race?

I wouldn't if it was optional, because I wouldn't be wearing the headphones anyway. Making it an optional add on though would not bother me in the least. I doubt that the insurance companies would really go for that though, especially since the waivers really don't have much in the way of legal standing. The insurance company will be the ones on the hook if you do something stupid, get yourself hurt, and then sue the race or the race directors. It's even worse if you don't do something stupid and something happens to you.