RESOURCES FOR RACE DIRECTORS

 Women's Advance Start Survey 

Comments from Elite Women on Women's Advance Starts::

Advanced starts don't seem to work well unless there are a large number of woman, say at least 100. They are unmotivating and hard for me to push myself.

If you want women to run fast they should compete against the men. I think it helps bring up the level of competition.

Part of the fun of road races is the energy of the crowd. It can be very difficult in longer races to run solo - without the support of other runners. Women's fields are generally more spread out than men's fields, so the probability of running alone increases significantly with an all-women's start. I would favor a relatively large elite women's field if this type of start becomes more prevalent (at least 100-200 runners).

Separate starts take from the overall event, actually diminishing the participation of women .

I like the advanced start for women because I don't have to search through men to find the women I am competing against.

Personally I prefer to race with the men because it gives me something to focus on. Perhaps some of the faster women do not have this problem, but I find that where I tend to be in races is a gap area-behind the elite-elite women, but well ahead of most of the women. In other words, a no-man's land. In fact, men are sometimes sparse in this time range and having anyone around kicks up the competitive juices.

I think it is great to have both types of races. I don't believe there is any advantage for the women only start but for media.

I prefer a mixed start as there are typically more people to run with in my ability range.

I think it is overall better for the women's competition to have a mixed start with the men. At too many races, especially the longer ones, the women end up being very spread out. It's sad, but women's races are just not as deep as men's races right now. I think that will change in the future, but in the meantime, I think it greatly benefits women to have other people around them so that they avoid running the last 10k of a half-marathon alone. When races do have separate starts however, I think that the elite women should be count separately from the women with the mass start. It is a separate race, the weather conditions could be slightly different or the pacing could be off in one field. It doesn't seem fair to separate the fields but then count them all together.

As a runner who is going for the "B" Standard for the Marathon , an advance start in marathons for Elite women is a turnoff. I have several friends who run 2:40 and will not run in NYC because of the advance start. They would be running the entire race alone, so they opt for other races.

Personally I don't like advance start for women because i am not always the first woman and it's a disadvantage to be dropped. Even though it stimulates situations in major competition, we need good competitions and good time before participating in major competitions, right?

Just let men and women run together and this would solve everything....I like the idea of men and women running together it's more fun.... sure it's an aid if women are paced by men but everyone has that advantage then there should be no problem... it isn't like you can draft like biking or other sports running isn't just like that ....  

It is also nice to avoid the general male runner who goes out hammering and then dies right in front of elite women races. Several times I have had male runners intentionally hinder my path as they do not want to "get beating by a girl" elite runner or not.

I go back and forth on my feelings about this question, so if I filled out this survey next week, I might change my mind. As someone in the back of the "elite" pack, it can get lonely running alone and tough to run up to my best, but at the same time, I do think it's more competitive and fair to have a separate women's start.

I feel strongly that pacing by men should not be allowed in women's races. Such pacing is clearly an advantage for the woman paced, giving her an unfair advantage over other women who are not paced. I was extremely disappointed to see Paula Radcliffe and Deena Kastor receive so much attention for marathons where they were paced every single step of the way - giving them a clear advantage over women behind them who did not have male runners pacing them every single step (in Kastor's case, the pacer was even her personal training partner!). They are both amazing athletes, but running is a sport where fairness matters - and this does not just mean systematic drug testing but also a commitment to a level playing field in competitive situations. At the same time, I feel that women who are not in an elite field and manage to run faster than those in an elite field should be given prize money - they have overcome the odds of a crowded start line etc. But, every effort should be made to have relatively large elite women's-only field to prevent this from occurring often. Promising runners in debut marathons, etc. should be included in elite fields.

Advanced start bring attn to the women’s race, they are also less likely to be lost or worse in the stampede...

It can be advantageous to women to have the elite men and women start at the same time because oftentimes women end up alone, and unable to truly "race" as there's no "target" ahead to try and catch. When there are men around, even though they aren't direct competition, it gives some drive. This is not usually important to the top few women in an event, but even in those cases, sometimes the 3rd or 4th place woman can end up alone. On the other hand, the spotlight given to women when they start separately is a good thing and it does teach women to not rely on men. It also takes away any potential pacing advantage that one woman could have over another from a man in the same competition. This helps everyone in terms of straight-out racing and having to run your best without any rabbits/pacers to help you along. It's good practice for championships. There are, obviously, pros and cons to each.

I think in theory the advance start is a good thing however, in longer races (marathon in particular) the athletes not running in the lead group end up at a greater disadvantage. Quite often races will provide women pace makers for the first group but nothing for the others this means that women can be left running on their own for long periods of time. I think advance starts should only happen without any pace makers or with pace makers evenly through the field.

Although I see the benefits of an advanced women's start in terms of exposure, I prefer a mass start because in my opinion - the more competitors I have around me the better. Advanced women's start races can get very spread out and turn into time trials for many of the women in the field - I see this as a downfall.

I like to race other people regardless of their gender.

My experience with elite women's starts has only been in marathons, where I think starting the women separately makes more of a difference then in races of shorter distances. I think it's a good idea to really highlight the women's competition, but I am also accepting of the fact that women's fields aren't always as deep as men's and many times you end up running a majority of the race (marathon) on your own.

Advance starts make it a much lonelier race for women. Women aren't pack runners yet...they string out much quicker than the men do because there aren't as many in the sport that can run "elite-like" times.

As a woman who has participated in many advance starts it sucks unless you are in the front lead pack. There is not enough depth in women's running so if you are not in the lead pack you essentially run a time trial. I understand the importance to practice for the Olympic Trials and Olympics-World Championships but in the end its only a hand full of people every few years that need that practice and its only in the marathon. So maybe the National Championships for the marathon does the advance start to give people that opportunity to practice. I will add that it also depends on the field size. I race like Tufts 10k is great because there are so many women it does not matter that there are no men to race as well but some of the races that have an elite start for 10-20 women sucks. I would rather start with the masses than the elite women.

Separate women starts help the women to identify the competition. Sometimes in a mixed start you can lose track of the lead women or not know where they are in the race.

I personally like having more people around me when I race, so I prefer mixed starts, but I understand why women starts are being used more now.

I think running in a mixed start will help women to reach their potential. The positive benefits a woman gains in her ability when she runs a fast time is powerful. Also not many women run around my pace they are either much faster or too slow, so I end up running on my own. What does it matter if I run with men or women, as long as there is good depth in the field then we can all help each other to race well. A championship qualifier only looks at time, not who was in the race, Esp. in road racing. (track may be different).

Because the advance start puts you in a remote competition- without the element of the pack that happens with a mass start- it is important that the women are only competing with one another for the prize money- essentially it is a separate race. I also feel that elite women should make the choice whether to run in the mixed race or the separate start. This way if there goal is qualifying times- they can focus on that- and not the competition.