this paragraph caught my attention.

"A note about the 2013 Leadville 100: The Leadville 100 includes many of the features that are important for a HR qualifier: high altitude, long climbs, potential for mountain weather, and more. However, the 2013 Leadville 100 ignored other traits of importance to the HR: environmental responsibility, support of the hosting community, and having a positive impact on the health of our sport. Because of timing, the 2013 LT100 will still be accepted as a qualifier for the 2014 HR. LT100 finishes will not be accepted as qualifiers for the 2015 HRH and beyond."

 

I don't think it was necessary to add those remarks, but I don't disagree with them.

 

Same here. My first thought when I read them was "I wonder if Lifetime cares?"

I haven't heard any kind of response from Lifetime about the issues this past year, and I just wondered if this might change anything.

 

Same here. My first thought when I read them was "I wonder if Lifetime cares?"

 

Evidently they care about the perception out there and are upset about this. However, I haven't heard a word from their side since the race. They've done no damage control at all. HR is definitely rubbing salt in the wound intentionally.

When I posted this link on my FB page, Cole Chlouber (Son of LT100 founder and now employee at Lifetime Fitness) threw a bit of a fit in my thread. It obviously struck a nerve.

 

Honestly, coming from a PR background I cannot believe they haven't done much damage control. Obviously there were problems that need to be addressed, not ignored.  I almost applied to work for Lifetime when I was considering a move to Denver, but I'm glad I didn't after this year's Leadville.

Maybe you should have. You may have been able to turn it around.

Seems to me that Hardrock and Leadville are in a pissing contest and HR has certainly pissed all over LT by not only eliminating LT as a qualifier, but not even allowing their own defined two year phase-out for LT.  As a 2013 LT finisher it sucks that my finish will only be “good” for one application to the 2014 HR (and not 2015).

lace, one comment. I note your comment on eliminating the “big” races as HR qualifiers reducing the number of people qualifying/applying for HR.  But the result of this could be the HR qualifiers could get more crowded by those who want to do HR.  This could turn in to a “double lottery” gauntlet, a lottery to get into a HR qualifier and then another lottery to get into HR itself.

Of course all this can all be avoided by doing other runs.

By the way, other than being a “big” race with a lot of runners, what was LT’s big offense?

 

lace, one comment. I note your comment on eliminating the “big” races as HR qualifiers reducing the number of people qualifying/applying for HR.  But the result of this could be the HR qualifiers could get more crowded by those who want to do HR.  This could turn in to a “double lottery” gauntlet, a lottery to get into a HR qualifier and then another lottery to get into HR itself.

 

By the way, other than being a “big” race with a lot of runners, what was LT’s big offense?

I agree that the possibility certainly exists, and in the case of Wasatch, it already does. I can see the Bear 100 becoming way more popular. As it is now, it's a pretty low key event. I also wonder if HR will add a few more events as qualifiers.

The 2013 LT100 was fine for me and I didn't really notice anything different from my two previous years. But I've heard a lot of horror stories from other runners about aid station trouble. Most of all, I think HR is just bullying Lifetime. They didn't leave snotty comments on their site about any of the other races they're dropping.

TnC: Thanks for the info.  But really most of the things mentioned are simply because LT has a lot of people in it.  Of course a race with lots of people will have more of an impact than a race with a small number of people in it.   I think if one could somehow consider the impact per runner there would not be a big difference between small and large races.  If we think about it a little bit, using their logic, a 100 mile race with 150 people in it will have more impact than a 10k with 150 people in it, so maybe we shouldn’t have 100 mile races.  By the way I was also at Leadville for the last two years and other than a few issues related to a large number of people and perhaps some poor management/organization I didn’t see any huge issues either. By the way, since I carry handhelds I hardly used any cups (a few cups of coke.)

lace: agree about the bullying comment and singling out LT.

Low_O2: that is exactly my point about the “double lottery” gauntlet.