Ultramarathon Daily News | Wed, June 26

The Spine is one of the toughest–if not the toughest–ultramarathon in the UK, and for the second year in a row, it was won outright by a female competitor, besting Jasmine Paris’ 2018 win by two hours. Wow! (Clarification, Jasmine won the winter edition while this most recent win was for the summer race. Same course, drastically different weather.)

Brett Hornig: I love reading race reports that are full of joy, and Brett’s report from Broken Arrow is just that. He nailed that race with even splits…sub five on that course is insane. Nice job, dude.

TrailSisters: Clare Farrow writes about her recent run in the Grand Canyon and gets a blast of confidence from her run. Sounds like Clare’s got a neat story!
Fun (and sad) fact: I’ve never been to the Grand Canyon.

The RD, the volunteers, the organization, the trails, the views, the hikers, the runners, the crews and pacers- everything surrounding this race is just pure magic. That being said I can make something magical and beautiful into an unadulterated sh*t show.

–More on Manitou’s Revenge, here’s Jimmy’s report from this weekend.

High Lonesome 100 changes their entry policies and adds some slippery slopes. Prior to this change, any qualified athlete could register for the race, regardless of gender, with no barriers preventing runners from entering. Now entries will be specifically based on gender. How is this progress?
I’d like to see more female participation in the sport too, but I don’t think this is the way to do it.

A better solution?

Encourage young girls to get into the sport.
Support brands and races that focus on–but don’t patronize–females.
Motivate more women to get into MUT media.
And showcase trail running as a safe activity.

Scotty Mills a few steps away from the track in 2018.

WS: Good bio on Scotty Mills. Can’t wait to see come leaning into the track this weekend. Here’s our interview with him from last year.

Business: Under Armour jumps into the TransRockies game as title sponsor.

Western States: I’ll be up at Squaw starting tomorrow, then will spend most of Saturday at Foresthill. Same routine as last ten years…hang out all day in the URP tent (prob just past the hotel), cheer for runners, then I’ll head to the track in the later afternoon. Swing by and say hi!

Completing a tough race then sitting down immediately to type out a comprehensive (and coherent!) race report is a rare talent. Here’s a great mid packer report from The Great New York 100 Miler this past weekend.

I released a new episode yesterday featuring Jonathan Levitt as a guest. We sat down in Squaw a few days ago to talk about how and why he got into podcasting, which issues we choose to address, what tech we prefer, why more women don’t get into the medium, and more. And of course…we geek out on some WS predictions.

Koop: How to handle a mid-race catastrophe: Accept, Diagnose, Analyze…

Mocko’s heading to Western Staes and here’s his latest video. I tend to laugh, shake my head, and chuckle at each of his updates.

Would anyone like to help out compile Daily News feeds while I’m gone? I’ll be in Europe from July 9-Aug 18 and am looking for someone to help compile the Daily News. Put your own spin or flavor on this newsletter and reach thousands of people each day! I already have a few people interested, so if you’re looking for a few days or a full week, let me know… and if you don’t know WordPress I can get you up to speed in five minutes. Email eric@ultrarunnerpodcast and include DAILY NEWS in the subject. Thanks.

32 Responses to "Ultramarathon Daily News | Wed, June 26"

Pete says:

June 26, 2019 at 7:46 am

Worth noting this is the Spine Fusion – the summer version of the Spine Race which Jasmin won in January

Reply
1. eric schranz says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 7:47 am
  
  Ah, thanks for the clarification. I didn’t catch that.
  Still incredible.
  
  Reply
Pete says:

June 26, 2019 at 7:49 am

No doubt! Probably a little easier with way more day light (18-20 hours a day in summer vs. 8-10 in winter)

Reply
Patrick Krott says:

June 26, 2019 at 7:54 am

From the High Lonesome site: “We have also updated our policies to enable and encourage transgender and non-binary runners to register as their identified gender. ”

Doesn’t the very definition of “non-binary” mean the person does not identify as a single gender? Admittedly I’m not very up-to-date on the ever-changing terminology and landscape, and I realize that the race is just trying to be more inclusive.

Reply
1. Caleb Efta (HL100 RD) says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 2:00 pm
  
  Hey Pete, if you take a look at the full policy, the language we use is:
  
  “Although we ask that non-binary or genderqueer runners register under their birth gender, we want to acknowledge and respect their differences and will provide opportunity in the registration process to express their desired pronouns.”
  
  At the bottom of the Policy we list out the questions that we are adding to the registration process as well. Hopefully that helps clarify!
  
  Reply
Jill Homer says:

June 26, 2019 at 8:00 am

Is it really so bad to have one race that doles out an equal number of spots to men and women? I think it would be rather exciting to have a race where 50 percent of the participants are women.

My unpopular opinion is that some race cutoffs remain a barrier for a higher percentage of women than men. You do the math at any local 50K race with those who finish in 7-8 hours. Many of these runners are women who may have the endurance and desire to run a 100-miler, but finishing in under 30 hours would be a big leap. Gaining more experience isn’t always enough to gain the necessary speed.

Reply
1. eric schranz says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 8:09 am
  
  To clarify, I never said it was “bad.” I think it’s misguided and unnecessary.
  
  Reply
Patrick Krott says:

June 26, 2019 at 8:03 am

I actually really like that they’re opening up 50% of spots for men and women. Sure, based on usual demand, the men’s spots will fill up faster, but perhaps knowing that half the field is going to be women will be an enticing reason to sign up for the race. I’m definitely looking forward to see how it plays out.

Reply
1. eric schranz says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 8:39 am
  
  Also makes it easy to get in if the men’s field fills up.
  
  Reply
Paul says:

June 26, 2019 at 8:04 am

We often say the men’s and women’s races are separate races that just happen to be at the same time on the same course. From that perspective it just makes sense to fill the races separately.

Reply
1. eric schranz says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 8:05 am
  
  That’s a good and fair point Paul.
  
  Reply
Sabrina Little says:

June 26, 2019 at 8:40 am

This was such a great episode.

Reply
Jacob Scheckman says:

June 26, 2019 at 8:49 am

Whenever I consider entering a race, I try to find information about it to see if I’d be interested in entering. I’ll check the results and the times to see if it feels like an event I’d fit into. If I’m looking for a marathon, and I see one where 80% of the finishers are sub-2:30, I’m not likely to have that much fun running 3:30 in that race. I can only imagine that this would be true for women as well. To me, your bullet points are right on but just going to women or young girls and saying “you should run a trail race” isn’t enough. Enforcing gender equity in race registration doesn’t just tell women that the men in their life think they’d enjoy running a trail race with a bunch of men. It demonstrates to them that there already are a bunch of badass women out there and that they’d fit right in. To me that point doubles when it comes to the safety aspect. A bunch of dudes saying “oh yeah its totally safe” doesn’t mean a whole lot.

That’s at least my perception of it. I’m a guy so I don’t really know. But I for one applaud the High Lonesome 100 for actually trying something rather than just talking about it.

Reply
Jennifer says:

June 26, 2019 at 9:14 am

Jill, I tend to share your “unpopular opinion.” There’s no question that races with tight cutoffs (hello Leadville!) have a disparate impact on women. The winning times in a 100 for women are generally at least two hours slower than the men’s, and you’ll often notice a higher percentage of women in the back of the pack at nearly any distance. Cutoffs for many races were established back when fields were overwhelmingly male. I’m not saying races need to give women more time to finish. But I do think having more generous cutoffs overall could only help improve women’s participation in the sport – especially at longer distances.

Reply
Garret C says:

June 26, 2019 at 9:26 am

It’s good and fine for a race to allow equal numbers of men and women. Like Paul said already, we mostly treat the men’s and women’s races separately anyway, so it’s fine to have two equally sized races. You do a good job covering women’s races, but I find your strain of selective libertarianism/hoping that because you largely cover women’s running in equal proportion everyone else will too to be super annoying. Just one example, Hardrock’s legacy lottery system will forever mean that a smaller fraction of female applicants get in than male applicants. (I’m not talking about the ratio of male to female applicants, clearly there are fewer female applicants. But among applicants, women will for the foreseeable future have worse odds because there are fewer of the nearly-guaranteed-entry vets.) Analogous to (but clearly less awful than) slavery/voter-suppression, it’s silly to discriminate against a group for centuries/decades and then say “no more discrimination plus I personally treat you well so everybody’s equal now! Special treatment (restitution/quotas/whatever) would be “misguided and unnecessary”.” You benefit, even if indirectly, from the history, so it would be cool if you didn’t post this same complaint about every single race that does some minuscule amount of enforcement in the other direction.

Reply
1. eric schranz says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 9:42 am
  
  I’ll look past the ridiculous semi-comparison to slavery and agree that the HR lottery is mathematically unfair and problematic for women (or any new runners) to “win.” That lottery an entirely different issue than a traditional registration/lottery process.
  
  Reply
Garret C says:

June 26, 2019 at 10:12 am

Sorry, that’s what analogies are. Two things that aren’t the same size (a fact I volunteered!) can still point in the same direction. I honestly don’t get why you make this editorial comment any time a race does something like this. What bad things do you think will happen because a race is split 50/50? Is next year’s average man having worse odds of entry than a woman really so misguided? Or, you assert the slope is slippery, so what far worse outcome are you worried about? I admit the surface isn’t level (most aren’t) but not all slopes are slippery, or even slick, or wet, and I find it hard to imagine a scenario where a 50/50 race leads to anything other than … a 50/50 race with equal purses and a culture of more women competing in hard mountain races.

Reply
Terry Miller says:

June 26, 2019 at 10:17 am

I like women more than men. And I’d be happy to see more women try and succeed at the 100 mile distance. As such, I’d be happy to be in a race with 50% women. And if that was the stated purpose (“I just want more women and I don’t care if it sucks for men, they can go F themselves”) I wouldn’t have a problem with it. No different than ladies’ night at a bar. Whatever.
But the premise of advancing ‘inclusivity’ and the affirmative action aspect; or that it is somehow fair to women or increases women’s access is garbage. From a fairness perspective, it’s B***S****. And as women already had the same access, I don’t see how a case could be made that it somehow advances women’s participation in the sport. They are just taking spots away from men to get the number of women they want.

Reply
1. eric schranz says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 10:53 am
  
  Exactly. Thank You.
  
  Reply
2. Caleb Efta (HL100 RD) says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 1:57 pm
  
  I’m really bummed to hear that you think our gender equity policy is B***S*** and our explanation of it is “garbage” Terry. You’re entitled to your thoughts, and you’ve often shared them to the many people in our community. If you want to have a beer and talk through them more, I’m happy to do that, especially since we’re both in the same area.
  
  The on thing that I will say is that the race is free and able to do what it wants, and we want to see equal gender participation at the High Lonesome 100. To get to that end, we are doing this policy and we believe that it is fair and equitable to do so. We also believe that this action will have a tangible and positive impact on female participation in the 100-mile distance.
  
  If you disagree – and it seems that you clearly do – the good news is that you don’t have to run the race. You don’t have to volunteer at it. You don’t even have to stop telling people about how you disagree with it. You get to support (or not) the races that you want to, whether that’s by running them or volunteering at them. The diversity of options in race styles, ethics, values, locations, and distances is one of the great things about the sport.
  
  I for one, am incredibly proud of the community and race that we’ve built, and I’m proud to see the overwhelming support for these new policies. It’s a community that values and celebrates each other, and I look forward to continuing to do that for years to come.
  
  Reply
Colin C says:

June 26, 2019 at 1:44 pm

While I know that the “hot take” is about the 50/50 split for the HL100, I think their new child policy for both partners and adoptive families is incredible. Being part of an adoptive family is incredible, and I applaud the race for including this in their policies!

Reply
Andrew says:

June 26, 2019 at 8:30 pm

On a slightly lighter note, am I the only one that thinks Chris Mocko is the most overrated ultra runner these days in terms of how much notoriety he gets compared to his results in truly competitive events?

Reply
1. eric schranz says:
  
  June 26, 2019 at 8:42 pm
  
  Who’s hot and influential in this sport is not always tied directly to their success. I like Mocko.
  
  Reply
2. Jay D says:
  
  June 27, 2019 at 11:23 am
  
  I don’t know. I don’t hear many people predicting him for the top 5, but he certainly has the speed to make the back half of the top 10. He gets more attention than someone like, say, Mark Hammond, but I don’t think that means he’s overrated – he’s just someone people pay attention to because he’s out there on social media and he’s an interesting personality. And he’s been top ten at Western States before, and he crushed Bandera and Black Canyon earlier this year. I’m skeptical that he’ll do better than maybe 7th or 8th (and would not be surprised if he blows up again), but I don’t the expectations around him are high enough to call him “overrated.”
  
  Reply
David Christopher says:

June 26, 2019 at 10:40 pm

Mocko is awesome. There isn’t a need for someone’s success to be tied to their profile. He’s very honest about his abilities, just like Sage imo (… wouldn’t say the same about DeanK)

Reply
Nicolas says:

June 27, 2019 at 12:38 am

Kudos to HL 100 for their badass policies!

Reply
Luke says:

June 28, 2019 at 11:22 am

Week of Western States and the whole page is an argument about affirmative action… Can we focus on the important issues like whether or not Jim is going to hold onto the rope at Rucky Chucky tomorrow??

Reply
jonathanagaus says:

June 29, 2019 at 5:07 pm

Congrats to Trail Sister on the R2R2R!

Reply
Cees says:

June 30, 2019 at 12:13 pm

Woohoo for the Spine race! Bit sad that my first indirect mention on this amazing site is for a race I DNF-ed in… To add to the discussion, all kudos to Sabrina for finishing that brute of race. It was a pleasure to run with for 2ish days and I think I can safely say we were equal then.

Reply
A Race’s New Policies Target Gender Equity and Inclusion - Weightloss Top News says:

July 1, 2019 at 8:25 pm

[…] course, the changes at High Lonesome aren’t without critics, saying that granting entry based on gender is unfair and “takes spots away from […]

Reply
A Race's New Policies Target Gender Equity and Inclusion – Women's Running | My Sports News says:

July 2, 2019 at 12:21 am

[…] course, the changes at High Lonesome aren’t without critics, saying that granting entry based on gender is unfair and “takes spots away from […]

Reply
A Race’s New Policies Target Gender Equity and Inclusion – Women’s Running – WSN says:

July 9, 2019 at 6:13 am

[…] course, the changes at High Lonesome aren’t without critics, saying that granting entry based on gender is unfair and “takes spots away from […]

Reply

Please use real name. Anonymous comments will be deleted. Thanks.Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.